IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12441-d676550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in California

Author

Listed:
  • Jagdish Poudel

    (Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA)

  • Raju Pokharel

    (Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA)

Abstract

Habitat conservation banking is a policy instrument for conserving endangered species by providing financial incentives for the landowners in the United States. This policy instrument aims to protect habitat, but little or no thought has been given to its financial performance. A financial analysis of habitat conservation banks (HCB) informs policymakers and conservation biologists of the long-term success of this policy and the future of HCBs. This paper evaluates 26 habitat conservation banks (HCB) in California by calculating their Net Present Values (NPV). We do so by compiling the cost and revenue data for habitat conservation banks. The average annual cost of operating HCBs was $42.78/acre (median: $22.58/acre), and the average credit price or revenue from credit sale was $6014.72/acre (median: $553.65/acre). The average NPV for 26 HCBs was $4205.90/acre at a 4% rate of return, indicating an overall positive return from such an easement instrument. However, only 14 HCBs out of 26 produced a positive return. With the inclusion of land acquisition costs, three of eight HCBs performed financially well. On the brighter side, the number of HCBs has increased with time. But there is not enough evidence to ascertain financial certainty from their revenues. A right selection of space (land acquisition costs can make or break finances for HCB) and species could encourage landowners to establish HCBs. This could build confidence on those who may have been discouraged from lack of knowledge and fear of losing revenue due to regulatory compliance to conserve endangered species habitat in their land. The findings are helpful in identifying lands and prioritizing investments to generate conservation credits.

Suggested Citation

  • Jagdish Poudel & Raju Pokharel, 2021. "Financial Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-12, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12441-:d:676550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12441/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12441/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Innes & Stephen Polasky & John Tschirhart, 1998. "Takings, Compensation and Endangered Species Protection on Private Lands," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 35-52, Summer.
    2. Lueck, Dean & Michael, Jeffrey A, 2003. "Preemptive Habitat Destruction under the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(1), pages 27-60, April.
    3. Marie Grimm, 2021. "Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Daowei Zhang, 2004. "Endangered Species and Timber Harvesting: The Case of Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(1), pages 150-165, January.
    5. Ferraro, Paul J. & McIntosh, Craig & Ospina, Monica, 2007. "The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 245-261, November.
    6. Byl, Jacob P., 2019. "Perverse Incentives and Safe Harbors in the Endangered Species Act: Evidence From Timber Harvests Near Woodpeckers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 100-108.
    7. Gardner M. Brown & Jason F. Shogren, 1998. "Economics of the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 3-20, Summer.
    8. Marie Grimm & Johann Köppel, 2019. "Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Vatn, Arild, 2015. "Markets in environmental governance. From theory to practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 225-233.
    10. Wätzold, Frank & Lienhoop, Nele & Drechsler, Martin & Settele, Josef, 2008. "Estimating optimal conservation in the context of agri-environmental schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 295-305, December.
    11. Boyd, James & Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca, 2017. "Private Sector Conservation Investments under the Endangered Species Act: A Guide to Return on Investment Analysis," RFF Working Paper Series dp-17-11, Resources for the Future.
    12. Poudel, Jagdish & Zhang, Daowei & Simon, Benjamin, 2018. "Estimating the demand and supply of conservation banking markets in the United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 320-325.
    13. Boisvert, Valérie, 2015. "Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 134-142.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastian Theis & Mark S. Poesch, 2022. "Assessing Conservation and Mitigation Banking Practices and Associated Gains and Losses in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-24, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sebastian Theis & Mark S. Poesch, 2022. "Assessing Conservation and Mitigation Banking Practices and Associated Gains and Losses in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-24, May.
    2. Robert Innes & George Frisvold, 2009. "The Economics of Endangered Species," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 485-512, September.
    3. Malone, Trey & Melstrom, Richard T., 2020. "Where’s the beef? Cattle producers’ response to endangered species listings," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Richard T. Melstrom, 2021. "The Effect of Land Use Restrictions Protecting Endangered Species on Agricultural Land Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 162-184, January.
    5. Christian Langpap & Joe Kerkvliet & Jason F Shogren, 2018. "The Economics of the U.S. Endangered Species Act: A Review of Recent Developments," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 69-91.
    6. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258281, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Bošković, Branko & Nøstbakken, Linda, 2017. "The cost of endangered species protection: Evidence from auctions for natural resources," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 174-192.
    8. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "Where to drill? The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 320-327.
    9. Michael Brei & Agustín Pérez‐Barahona & Eric Strobl, 2020. "Protecting Species through Legislation: The Case of Sea Turtles," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 300-328, January.
    10. Catherine M. Chambers & Paul E. Chambers & John R. Crooker & John C. Whitehead, 2008. "Stochastic Dominance, Entropy and Biodiversity Management," Working Papers 08-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    11. Nelson, Erik J. & Withey, John C. & Pennington, Derric & Lawler, Joshua J., 2017. "Identifying the impacts of critical habitat designation on land cover change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 89-125.
    12. Jacob P. Byl, 2021. "Three Barriers to Effective Programs with Payment for Ecosystem Services: Behavioral Responses in a Computer-Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-17, November.
    13. Langpap, Christian & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2012. "Endangered species conservation on private land: Assessing the effectiveness of habitat conservation plans," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 1-15.
    14. Ferraro, Paul J. & McIntosh, Craig & Ospina, Monica, 2007. "The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 245-261, November.
    15. Melstrom, Richard T. & Lee, Kangil & Byl, Jacob P., 2018. "Do Regulations to Protect Endangered Species on Private Lands Affect Local Employment? Evidence from the Listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    16. Byl, Jacob P., 2019. "Perverse Incentives and Safe Harbors in the Endangered Species Act: Evidence From Timber Harvests Near Woodpeckers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 100-108.
    17. Alejandro M. Bellon, 2019. "Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(3), pages 399-411, July.
    18. Huennemeyer, Anne-Juliane & McKitrick, Ross & Rollins, Kimberly S., 1999. "Optimal Compensation For Endangered Species Protection Under Asymmetric Information," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21693, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Greenstone, Michael & Gayer, Ted, 2009. "Quasi-experimental and experimental approaches to environmental economics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 21-44, January.
    20. Melstrom, Richard T. & Lee, Kangil & Byl, Jacob P., 2016. "The effect of endangered species regulations on local employment: Evidence from the listing of the lesser prairie chicken," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236254, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12441-:d:676550. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.