IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cpp/issued/v26y2000i1p95-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protection des habitats d'espèces menacées en terres privée: analyse d'instruments et de la politique canadienne

Author

Listed:
  • Philippe Barla
  • Joseph A. Doucet
  • Jean-Daniel M. Saphores

Abstract

The preservation of biodiversity requires the protection of endangered species' habitats. In Canada, approximately 60 percent of these habitats are located on private lands. We start by analysing the obstacles to the protection of endangered species' habitats, with special attention to the compensation of private property owners affected by conservation efforts. After briefly reviewing the main measures adopted in Canada to protect natural habitats on private lands, we propose some conservation mechanisms that would not excessively burden public budgets. These measures should be discussed in the next proposal for a Canadian endangered species act.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippe Barla & Joseph A. Doucet & Jean-Daniel M. Saphores, 2000. "Protection des habitats d'espèces menacées en terres privée: analyse d'instruments et de la politique canadienne," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 26(1), pages 95-110, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpp:issued:v:26:y:2000:i:1:p:95-110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0317-0861%28200003%2926%3A1%3C95%3APDHDME%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T
    Download Restriction: only available to JSTOR subscribers
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard L. Stroup, 1997. "The Economics Of Compensating Property Owners," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 55-65, October.
    2. Richard Schwindt & Steven Globerman, 1996. "Takings of Private Rights to Public Natural Resources: A Policy Analysis," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 22(3), pages 205-224, September.
    3. Jon H. Goldstein & William D. Watson, 1997. "Property Rights, Regulatory Taking, And Compensation: Implications For Environmental Protection," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 32-42, October.
    4. Vatn Arild & Bromley Daniel W., 1994. "Choices without Prices without Apologies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 129-148, March.
    5. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    6. Stephen Polasky & Holly Doremus & Bruce Rettig, 1997. "Endangered Species Conservation On Private Land," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 66-76, October.
    7. Lawrence Blume & Daniel L. Rubinfeld & Perry Shapiro, 1984. "The Taking of Land: When Should Compensation Be Paid?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(1), pages 71-92.
    8. Mills, David E., 1980. "Transferable development rights markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 63-74, January.
    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. Robert Innes & George Frisvold, 2009. "The Economics of Endangered Species," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 485-512, September.
    2. Winfree, Jason A. & McCluskey, Jill J., 2007. "Takings of development rights with asymmetric information and an endogenous probability of an externality," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 320-333, November.
    3. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2011. "Regulatory Takings," Working papers 2011-16, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    4. Polasky, Stephen & Doremus, Holly, 1998. "When the Truth Hurts: Endangered Species Policy on Private Land with Imperfect Information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 22-47, January.
    5. Yun-chien Chang, 2015. "An economic and comparative analysis of specificatio (the accession doctrine)," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 225-243, April.
    6. 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).
    7. John Cadigan & Pamela Schmitt & Robert Shupp & Kurtis Swope, 2009. "An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(2), pages 444-457, October.
    8. Paul Burrows, 1997. "A Deferential Role for Efficiency Analysis in Unravelling the Takings Tangle," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 24, pages 105-123.
    9. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    10. Christian Schubert, 2006. "Fairness in Urban Land Use: An Evolutionary Contribution to Law & Economics," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2005-22, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    11. Robert M. Hunt & Tim VandenBerg, 1998. "Discouraging Federal actions that reduce the value of private property: evaluating procedural and financial approaches," Working Papers 98-24, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    12. Berrens, Robert P. & McKee, Michael & Farmer, Michael C., 1999. "Incorporating distributional considerations in the safe minimum standard approach: endangered species and local impacts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 461-474, September.
    13. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    14. Kathleen Segerson, 1997. "Government Regulation And Compensation: Implications For Environmental Quality And Natural Resource Use," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 28-31, October.
    15. Coggan, Anthea & Buitelaar, Edwin & Whitten, Stuart & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 222-231.
    16. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Ring, Irene, 1997. "Evolutionary strategies in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 237-249, December.
    18. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    19. Xiuqing Zou & Arie J. Oskam, 2007. "New Compensation Standard for Land Expropriation in China," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 15(5), pages 107-120, September.
    20. Paul Pecorino, 2013. "Compensation for Regulatory Takings with a Redistributive Government," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(2), pages 488-501, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations

    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:cpp:issued:v:26:y:2000:i:1:p:95-110. 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: Iver Chong (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.utpjournals.press/loi/cpp .

    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.