The Experts below are selected from a list of 117855 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Jeffrey A. Michael - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • preemptive habitat destruction under the Endangered Species act
    The Journal of Law and Economics, 2003
    Co-Authors: Dean Lueck, Jeffrey A. Michael
    Abstract:

    This paper examines the extent to which landowners have preemptively destroyed habitat for the Endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) in the forests of North Carolina in order to avoid potential land-use regulations prescribed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA, it is illegal to kill an Endangered Species and it is also illegal to damage its habitat. By preventing the establishment of an old-growth pine stand, landowners can ensure that RCWs do not inhabit their land and avoid ESA regulations that limit or prohibit timber harvest activity. Data from 1984–90 on over 1,000 individual forest plots are used to test predictions about the probability of harvest and the age of timber when it is harvested. We find that increases in the proximity of a plot to RCWs increases the probability that the plot will be harvested and decreases the age at which the forest is harvested.

  • THE Endangered Species ACT AND PRIVATE LANDOWNER INCENTIVES
    2000
    Co-Authors: Jeffrey A. Michael
    Abstract:

    While intended to increase the habitat available to Endangered Species, the restrictions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) increase the costs of harboring an Endangered Species to private landowners and create incentives for private landowners to reduce habitat. This paper illustrates the incentive for habitat destruction with a simple model of private land use under the ESA, and uses it to predict the effects of changes in policy or biological conditions on private landowner incentives. Many anecdotal accounts and recent empirical research support the predictions of the model. Because of the ESA’s perverse incentives, many have proposed replacing the punitive regulations of the ESA with positive incentives for habitat creation, including takings compensation, negligence compensation rules, tradable development rights, and land purchase programs. The paper concludes by reviewing economic analysis of these proposals’ effectiveness.

  • Preemptive Habitat Destruction Under the Endangered Species Act
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
    Co-Authors: Dean Lueck, Jeffrey A. Michael
    Abstract:

    This paper examines the extent to which landowners have preemptively destroyed Endangered Species' habitats in order to avoid potential landuse regulations prescribed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA it is not only illegal to take (kill) an Endangered Species, but it is also illegal to damage their habitat. Our application is to red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) in the forests of North Carolina. RCWs are an Endangered Species that live in old growth pine forests throughout the Southeast. Our primary hypothesis is that the closer a landowner is to known populations of RCWs, the more likely the landowner will take action to destroy the habitat for RCWs, primarily by "prematurely" cutting their pine forest. By preventing the establishment of an old growth pine stand, the landowner can insure that RCWs do not inhabit their land and avoid ESA regulations that limit or prohibit timber harvest activity. Two empirical questions are addressed: How does the potential for ESA regulation affect the harvest probability of a particular forest plot? How does the potential for ESA regulation affect the age at which a forest will be harvested? Data on over 1,000 individual forest plots from the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and a 1997-98 North Carolina State University (NCSU) survey of over 400 landowners are used to test predictions about the probability of harvest and the age of timber when it is harvested. The location of RCW populations is used to construct various measures of the probability that a forest plot will become inhabited by RCWs and thus subject to ESA restrictions on land use. Probit regressions estimate the probability that a plot is harvested and OLS regressions - corrected for harvest selection bias - estimate the age at which a plot is harvested. In all our estimates we find that increases in the proximity of a plot to RCWs increases the probability that the plot will be harvested and decreases the age at which the forest is harvested. These findings indicate that the ESA, at least for RCWs in North Carolina, actually reduces the amount of Endangered Species habitat.

Kate Mcgivern - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Jason F. Shogren - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Economics of the U.S. Endangered Species Act: A Review of Recent Developments
    Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2018
    Co-Authors: Christian Langpap, Joe Kerkvliet, Jason F. Shogren
    Abstract:

    AbstractEconomics has much to contribute to debates about the U.S. Endangered Species Act. We review recent developments in the economics of Endangered Species conservation since the late 1990s and...

  • Economics of the Endangered Species Act
    Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1998
    Co-Authors: Gardner M. Brown, Jason F. Shogren
    Abstract:

    , where he wrote: ‘‘By these means can the seductive little beauties, whetherof the feathered, furred, or scaly tribe . . . be preserved through endless time inundiminished abundance, furnishing the incentive that leads us away from our dullbooks or wearying cares, the crowded streets, the congregations of eager men, thetrials and excitement of business, . . . strengthening our nerves, renewing our holdof life, and elevating our moral nature.’’The Endangered Species Act is probably the most comprehensive of all ourenvironmental laws. It is often portrayed as the exemplar of ‘‘prohibitive policy . . .one of the most extreme forms of government intervention’’ (Yaffee, 1982). Assuch, it is no wonder the Act has proven controversial. Although the benefits ofprotecting Endangered Species accrue to the entire nation, a significant fraction ofthe costs imposed by the Act are borne by private landowners. About 90 percent ofthe nearly 1,100 Species of plants and animals listed as Endangered or threatenedunder the Act are found on private land. The combination of broad benefits andconcentrated costs can fan political firestorms, and many landowners complain thatthe costs of complying with the Act are too high (GAO, 1995a). The pressure toanswer the question of whether these costs exceed the social benefits has thrusteconomics into the heat of the debate over reauthorization of the EndangeredSpecies Act.

Loyal Mehrhoff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act
    PeerJ, 2019
    Co-Authors: Noah Greenwald, Brett Hartl, Kieran Suckling, Loyal Mehrhoff
    Abstract:

    The U.S. Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest laws of any nation for preventing Species extinction, but quantifying the Act’s effectiveness has proven difficult. To provide one measure of effectiveness, we identified listed Species that have gone extinct and used previously developed methods to update an estimate of the number of Species extinctions prevented by the Act. To date, only four Species have been confirmed extinct with another 22 possibly extinct following protection. Another 71 listed Species are extinct or possibly extinct, but were last seen before protections were enacted, meaning the Act’s protections never had the opportunity to save these Species. In contrast, a total of 39 Species have been fully recovered, including 23 in the last 10 years. We estimate the Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of roughly 291 Species since passage in 1973, and has to date saved more than 99% of Species under its protection.

  • Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act
    2019
    Co-Authors: Noah Greenwald, Kieran F Suckling, Brett Hartl, Loyal Mehrhoff
    Abstract:

    The United States Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest laws of any nation for preventing Species extinction, but quantifying the Act’s effectiveness has proven difficult. To provide one measure of effectiveness, we identified listed Species that have gone extinct and used previously developed methods to update an estimate of the number of Species extinctions prevented by the Act. To date, only four Species have been confirmed extinct with another 22 possibly extinct following protection. Another 71 listed Species are extinct or possibly extinct, but were last seen before protections were enacted, meaning the Act’s protections never had the opportunity to save these Species. In contrast, a total of 39 Species have been fully recovered, including 23 in the last 10 years. We estimate the Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of roughly 291 Species since passage in 1973, and has to date saved more than 99 percent of Species under its protection.

  • Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act
    2019
    Co-Authors: Noah Greenwald, Kieran F Suckling, Brett Hartl, Loyal Mehrhoff
    Abstract:

    The United States Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest laws of any nation for preventing Species extinction, but quantifying the Act’s effectiveness has proven difficult. To provide one measure of effectiveness, we identified listed Species that have gone extinct and used previously developed methods to update an estimate of the number of Species extinctions prevented by the Act. To date, only five Species have been confirmed extinct with another 22 possibly extinct following protection. Another 71 listed Species are extinct or possibly extinct, but were last seen before protections were enacted, meaning the Act’s protections never had the opportunity to save these Species. In contrast, a total of 39 Species have been fully recovered, including 23 in the last 10 years. We estimate the Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of roughly 465 Species since passage in 1973, and has to date saved more than 99 percent of Species under its protection.

Dean Lueck - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • preemptive habitat destruction under the Endangered Species act
    The Journal of Law and Economics, 2003
    Co-Authors: Dean Lueck, Jeffrey A. Michael
    Abstract:

    This paper examines the extent to which landowners have preemptively destroyed habitat for the Endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) in the forests of North Carolina in order to avoid potential land-use regulations prescribed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA, it is illegal to kill an Endangered Species and it is also illegal to damage its habitat. By preventing the establishment of an old-growth pine stand, landowners can ensure that RCWs do not inhabit their land and avoid ESA regulations that limit or prohibit timber harvest activity. Data from 1984–90 on over 1,000 individual forest plots are used to test predictions about the probability of harvest and the age of timber when it is harvested. We find that increases in the proximity of a plot to RCWs increases the probability that the plot will be harvested and decreases the age at which the forest is harvested.

  • Preemptive Habitat Destruction Under the Endangered Species Act
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
    Co-Authors: Dean Lueck, Jeffrey A. Michael
    Abstract:

    This paper examines the extent to which landowners have preemptively destroyed Endangered Species' habitats in order to avoid potential landuse regulations prescribed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA it is not only illegal to take (kill) an Endangered Species, but it is also illegal to damage their habitat. Our application is to red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) in the forests of North Carolina. RCWs are an Endangered Species that live in old growth pine forests throughout the Southeast. Our primary hypothesis is that the closer a landowner is to known populations of RCWs, the more likely the landowner will take action to destroy the habitat for RCWs, primarily by "prematurely" cutting their pine forest. By preventing the establishment of an old growth pine stand, the landowner can insure that RCWs do not inhabit their land and avoid ESA regulations that limit or prohibit timber harvest activity. Two empirical questions are addressed: How does the potential for ESA regulation affect the harvest probability of a particular forest plot? How does the potential for ESA regulation affect the age at which a forest will be harvested? Data on over 1,000 individual forest plots from the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and a 1997-98 North Carolina State University (NCSU) survey of over 400 landowners are used to test predictions about the probability of harvest and the age of timber when it is harvested. The location of RCW populations is used to construct various measures of the probability that a forest plot will become inhabited by RCWs and thus subject to ESA restrictions on land use. Probit regressions estimate the probability that a plot is harvested and OLS regressions - corrected for harvest selection bias - estimate the age at which a plot is harvested. In all our estimates we find that increases in the proximity of a plot to RCWs increases the probability that the plot will be harvested and decreases the age at which the forest is harvested. These findings indicate that the ESA, at least for RCWs in North Carolina, actually reduces the amount of Endangered Species habitat.