IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-25-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Cost of Species Protection: The Land Market Impacts of the Endangered Species Act

Author

Listed:
  • Auffhammer, Maximilian
  • McLaughlin, David W.
  • Spiller, Beia

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Sunding, David L.
  • Frank, Eyal G.

Abstract

Protecting species’ habitats is the main policy tool employed across the globe to reduce biodiversity losses. These protections are hypothesized to conflict with private landowners’ interests. We study the economic consequences of the most extensive and controversial piece of such environmental legislation in US history—the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. We assemble the most comprehensive data on species conservation efforts, land transactions, and building permits to date. By comparing parcels with identical histories of protections we show that, on average, the ESA shifts transactions from inside to outside of the protected area and leads to a slight appreciation in residential and vacant land values outside of critical habitats. We also show that the federal regulator determines borders for areas with the most stringent protections to avoid large effects on land values, only where it is explicitly allowed to take economic criteria into account. These average findings mask significant heterogeneity at the species and location level, which we document. Furthermore, we find no evidence of the ESA affecting building activity as measured by construction permits. Overall, even taking into account species-level heterogeneity, the number of possibly negatively affected parcels is extremely small. This suggests that the capitalization of the eco-nomic impacts of the ESA through the land market channel are likely minor, despite potential delays to development through permitting, for which we provide suggestive evidence. Our findings do not rule out economically significant impacts in a few highly constrained land markets with ESA protections amplified by local regulatory action.

Suggested Citation

  • Auffhammer, Maximilian & McLaughlin, David W. & Spiller, Beia & Sunding, David L. & Frank, Eyal G., 2025. "The Cost of Species Protection: The Land Market Impacts of the Endangered Species Act," RFF Working Paper Series 25-01, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-25-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/4736/WP_25-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John A. List & Michael Margolis & Daniel E. Osgood, 2006. "Is the Endangered Species Act Endangering Species?," NBER Working Papers 12777, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. 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.
    4. John M. Quigley & Steven Raphael, 2005. "Regulation and the High Cost of Housing in California," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 323-328, May.
    5. Edward Ludwig Glaeser & Joseph Gyourko, 2003. "The impact of building restrictions on housing affordability," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Jun, pages 21-39.
    6. Waddell, Paul & Berry, Brian J L & Hoch, Irving, 1993. "Residential Property Values in a Multinodal Urban Area: New Evidence on the Implicit Price of Location," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 117-141, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. David Sunding, 2014. "Conserving Endangered Species through Regulation of Urban Development: The Case of California Vernal Pools," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 290-305.
    3. 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.
    4. Christian A. L. Hilber, 2017. "The Economic Implications of House Price Capitalization: A Synthesis," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 45(2), pages 301-339, April.
    5. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Kyle Mangum, 2019. "Capitalization as a Two-Part Tariff: The Role of Zoning," NBER Working Papers 25699, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Reza Amindarbari & Perver Baran & Ross K. Meentemeyer, 2023. "Spatially disaggregated simulation of interactions between home prices and land-use change," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(7), pages 1879-1897, September.
    7. Cai, Hongbin & Wang, Zhi & Zhang, Qinghua, 2017. "To build above the limit? Implementation of land use regulations in urban China," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 223-233.
    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. Davis, Morris A. & Heathcote, Jonathan, 2007. "The price and quantity of residential land in the United States," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 2595-2620, November.
    10. Cun, Wukuang & Pesaran, M. Hashem, 2022. "A spatiotemporal equilibrium model of migration and housing interlinkages," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    11. Peter Chinloy & Jonathan Wiley, 2013. "Renegade Asset Markets," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 197-226, August.
    12. Christian A. L. Hilber & Wouter Vermeulen, 2016. "The Impact of Supply Constraints on House Prices in England," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(591), pages 358-405, March.
    13. Walls, Margaret & Riddle, Anne, 2012. "Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Land Use: Comparing Three Federal Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-08, Resources for the Future.
    14. Arthur Grimes & Andrew Aitken, 2006. "Housing Supply and Price Adjustment," Working Papers 06_01, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    15. Frank Jensen & Niels Vestergaard & Hans Frost, 1999. "Asymmetrisk information og regulering af forurening," Working Papers 1/99, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    16. Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy & Gail Pacheco & Kade Sorensen, 2021. "The effect of upzoning on house prices and redevelopment premiums in Auckland, New Zealand," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(5), pages 959-976, April.
    17. Cheshire, Paul & Hilber, Christian A.L. & Koster, Hans R.A., 2018. "Empty homes, longer commutes: The unintended consequences of more restrictive local planning," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 126-151.
    18. Howard, Greg & Liebersohn, Jack, 2021. "Why is the rent so darn high? The role of growing demand to live in housing-supply-inelastic cities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    19. Raven S. Molloy & Charles G. Nathanson & Andrew D. Paciorek, 2020. "Housing Supply and Affordability: Evidence from Rents, Housing Consumption and Household Location," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2020-044, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    20. Michael Manville & Michael Lens & Paavo Monkkonen, 2022. "Zoning and affordability: A reply to Rodríguez-Pose and Storper," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 59(1), pages 36-58, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-25-01. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.