IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ufzdps/72008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Applying tradable permits to biodiversity conservation: A conceptual analysis of trading rules

Author

Listed:
  • Wissel, Silvia
  • Wätzold, Frank

Abstract

Tradable permits have already been applied in many areas of environmental policy and may be a possible response to increasing calls for flexible conservation instruments which are able to successfully conserve biodiversity while allowing for economic development. The idea behind applying tradable permits to conservation is that developers wishing to turn land to economic purposes, thereby destroying valuable habitat, may only do so if they submit a permit to the conservation agency showing that habitat of at least the equivalent ecological value is restored elsewhere. The developer himself does not need to carry out the restoration, but may buy a permit from a third party thus allowing a market to emerge. However, applying tradable permits to biodiversity conservation is a complex issue, because destroyed and restored habitats are likely to differ. The purpose of this essay is to discuss on a conceptual level the consequences of these differences along the dimensions of type, space and time for the design of trading rules. We consider the resulting effects on trading activity in the permit market and the cost-effectiveness as well as the ecological effectiveness of the scheme. We find various trade-offs with regard to market activity, cost-effectiveness, ecological effectiveness and transaction costs .

Suggested Citation

  • Wissel, Silvia & Wätzold, Frank, 2008. "Applying tradable permits to biodiversity conservation: A conceptual analysis of trading rules," UFZ Discussion Papers 7/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzdps:72008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/44724/1/594705398.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baumgärtner, Stefan & Becker, Christian & Frank, Karin & Müller, Birgit & Quaas, Martin, 2008. "Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: The role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 384-393, October.
    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. Valle, Haydn & Capon, Timothy & Harris, Michael & Reeson, Andrew, 2012. "Coordination and Strategic Behaviour in Landscape Auctions," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124466, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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. Olivier Petit & Franck-Dominique Vivien, 2015. "When economists and ecologists meet on Ecological Economics: two science paths around two interdisciplinary concepts," Post-Print halshs-01249774, HAL.
    2. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    3. Adena R. Rissman & Lori Barrow, 2019. "Characteristics of collaborative, interdisciplinary, and engaged research among graduate students in environmental conservation," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(3), pages 297-310, September.
    4. Dube, Benjamin, 2021. "Why cross and mix disciplines and methodologies?: Multiple meanings of Interdisciplinarity and pluralism in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    5. Clive L. Spash, 2012. "Towards the Integration of Social, Economic and Ecological Knowledge," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Julien-François Gerber & Rolf Steppacher (ed.), Towards an Integrated Paradigm in Heterodox Economics, chapter 1, pages 26-46, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Linda Vanasupa & Lizabeth Schlemer & Roger Burton & Courtney Brogno & Ginger Hendrix & Neal MacDougall, 2014. "Laying the Foundation for Transdisciplinary Faculty Collaborations: Actions for a Sustainable Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-36, May.
    7. Buchs, Arnaud & Calvo-Mendieta, Iratxe & Petit, Olivier & Roman, Philippe, 2021. "Challenging the ecological economics of water: Social and political perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Spash, Clive L., 2012. "Ecological Economics and Philosophy of Science: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Ideology," SRE-Discussion Papers 2012/03, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    9. Pelenc, Jérôme & Bazile, Didier & Ceruti, Cristian, 2015. "Collective capability and collective agency for sustainability: A case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 226-239.
    10. Jahn, Thomas & Bergmann, Matthias & Keil, Florian, 2012. "Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-10.
    11. Castro e Silva, Manuela & Teixeira, Aurora A.C., 2011. "A bibliometric account of the evolution of EE in the last two decades: Is ecological economics (becoming) a post-normal science?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 849-862, March.
    12. Ferraro, Emilia & Reid, Louise, 2013. "On sustainability and materiality. Homo faber, a new approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 125-131.
    13. Bojkovic, Natasa & Anic, Ivan & Pejcic-Tarle, Snezana, 2010. "One solution for cross-country transport-sustainability evaluation using a modified ELECTRE method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1176-1186, March.
    14. Pauliuk, Stefan & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2015. "Socioeconomic metabolism as paradigm for studying the biophysical basis of human societies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 83-93.
    15. Lo, Alex, 2014. "The Problem of Methodological Pluralism in Ecological Economics," MPRA Paper 49543, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Quentin Couix, 2019. "Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1378, November.
    17. Wenjuan Cheng & Alessio D’Amato & Giacomo Pallante, 2020. "Benefit sharing mechanisms for agricultural genetic diversity use and on-farm conservation," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 37(1), pages 337-355, April.
    18. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    19. Rasch, Sebastian & Heckelei, Thomas & Storm, Hugo & Oomen, Roelof & Naumann, Christiane, 2017. "Multi-scale resilience of a communal rangeland system in South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 129-138.
    20. Gébert, Judit, 2015. "Mit is kell fenntartani?. Fenntarthatóság a képességszemlélet perspektívájából [Sustaining what?. Sustainability in terms of the capability approach]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 972-989.

    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:zbw:ufzdps:72008. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/doufzde.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.