Showing 1 - 3 of 3 Items

Date: 2013-08-01

Creator: Stephen Polasky, David Lewis, Andrew Plantinga, Erik Nelson

Access: Open access

Many ecosystem services are public goods whose provision depends on the spatial pattern of land use. The pattern of land use is often determined by the decisions of multiple private landowners. Increasing the provision of ecosystem services, while beneficial for society as a whole, may be costly to private landowners. A regulator interested in providing incentives to landowners for increased provision of ecosystem services often lacks complete information on landowners’ costs. The combination of spatially-dependent benefits and asymmetric cost information means that the optimal provision of ecosystem services cannot be achieved using standard regulatory or payment for ecosystem services (PES) approaches. Here we show that an auction that pays a landowner for the increased value of ecosystem services generated by the landowner’s actions provides incentives for landowners to truthfully reveal cost information, and allows the regulator to implement the optimal provision of ecosystem services, even in the case with spatially-dependent benefits and asymmetric information.

Date: 2022-07-29

Creator: Saleh Mamun, Erik Nelson, Christoph Nolte

Access: Open access

We use differences-in-differences (DD) estimators to measure the impact that Endangered Species Act (ESA)’s Critical Habitat (CH) rule had on developed and undeveloped parcel prices throughout the US between 2000 and 2019. In a national-level analysis we found that, on average, the price of parcels “treated” with CH were not statistically different than the prices of nearby parcels in listed species range space but not “treated” by CH. CH’s null impact on developed parcel prices is surprising given homeowner’s documented willingness to pay for property surrounded by protected open space. CH’s null impact on undeveloped parcel prices is surprising as previous research had indicated that the impact of CH on undeveloped parcel prices was negative due to the additional regulatory costs and development uncertainty the CH regulation imposes on land developers. When we used relevant subsets of CH areas to measure CH’s impact on parcel prices, we did occasionally find results that were consistent with expectations. We reach two conclusions. First, the impact of the economic impact of the CH rule, holding the impact of other ESA sections constant, cannot be reduced to a simple, consistent narrative. Second, CH’s relatively minor impact on parcel prices suggests that the rule does not have much regulatory “bite.”

Date: 2014-10-01

Creator: Erik Nelson, John C. Withey, Derric Pennington, Joshua J. Lawler

Access: Open access

We determine the effect of the US Endangered Species Act’s Critical Habitat designation on land use change from 1992 to 2011. We find that the rate of change in developed land (constructed material) and agricultural land is not significantly affected by Critical Habitat designation. Therefore, Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act do not appear to be more heavily applied in lands designated as Critical Habitat areas versus lands within listed species’ ranges, but without critical habitat designation. Further, there does not appear to be any extraordinary conservation activity in critical habitat areas; for example, environmental non-profits and land trusts do not appear to be concentrating activity in these areas. Before we conclude that the opportunity cost of Critical Habitat designation is negligible we need to examine the land management impacts of designation.