IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v85y2009i4p712-726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Social Costs of Mineland Restoration

Author

Listed:
  • Jay Sullivan
  • Gregory S. Amacher

Abstract

A model of mineland restoration is presented to show the wedge between mine operator and social planner decisions and social costs of current instruments. We find, first, mine operator efforts may not match socially optimal levels and consequently generate relatively high social costs, second, social costs can be reduced using a bond that targets eventual site factors and land rent generation, and, third, in general, social costs may not be eliminated fully at bond levels that still encourage the mine operator to choose forest over grassland as a postmining use. This suggests greater scope for command- and control-based regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jay Sullivan & Gregory S. Amacher, 2009. "The Social Costs of Mineland Restoration," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 712-726.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:85:y:2009:i:4:p:712-726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/85/4/712
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Swallow, Stephen K. & Parks, Peter J. & Wear, David N., 1990. "Policy-relevant nonconvexities in the production of multiple forest benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 264-280, November.
    2. Stephen K. Swallow & Piyali Talukdar & David N. Wear, 1997. "Spatial and Temporal Specialization in Forest Ecosystem Management Under Sole Ownership," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 311-326.
    3. Hartman, Richard, 1976. "The Harvesting Decision When a Standing Forest Has Value," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 14(1), pages 52-58, March.
    4. Swallow Stephen K. & Wear David N., 1993. "Spatial Interactions in Multiple-Use Forestry and Substitution and Wealth Effects for the Single Stand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 103-120, September.
    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. Pauli Lappi & Markku Ollikainen, 2019. "Optimal Environmental Policy for a Mine Under Polluting Waste Rocks and Stock Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 133-158, May.
    2. Lappi, Pauli, 2018. "Optimal clean-up of polluted sites," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 53-68.
    3. Kuusela, O.P. & Amacher, G.S. & Moeltner, K., 23. "Performance Bonds in Tropical Timber Concessions: Encouraging the Adoption of Reduced Impact Logging Techniques," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 44, May.
    4. Lappi, Pauli, 2020. "A model of optimal extraction and site reclamation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Simone Marsiglio & Nahid Masoudi, 2022. "Reclamation of a resource extraction site: A differential game approach," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 770-802, July.
    6. Lappi, Pauli, 2020. "On optimal extraction under asymmetric information over reclamation costs," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    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. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    2. Gregory S. Amacher & Arun S. Malik & Robert G. Haight, 2005. "Not Getting Burned: The Importance of Fire Prevention in Forest Management," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    3. Newman, D.H., 2002. "Forestry's golden rule and the development of the optimal forest rotation literature," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 5-27.
    4. Ready, Richard C. & Bergland, Olvar & Romstad, Eirik, 2001. "Optimal Management Of A Forest/Wildlife System With Bilateral Externalities," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20561, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Rose, Steven K. & Chapman, Duane, 2003. "Timber harvest adjacency economies, hunting, species protection, and old growth value: seeking the dynamic optimum," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 325-344, March.
    6. Rose, Steven K., 1999. "Public Forest Land Allocation: A Dynamic Spatial Perspective on Environmental Timber Management," Working Papers 127700, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    7. Warziniack, Travis & Sims, Charles & Haas, Jessica, 2019. "Fire and the joint production of ecosystem services: A spatial-dynamic optimization approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Tahvonen, Olli & Salo, Seppo, 1999. "Optimal Forest Rotation within SituPreferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 106-128, January.
    9. Gregory S. Amacher & Erkki Koskela & Markku Ollikainen, 2002. "Forest Rotations and Stand Interdependency: Ownership Structure and Timing of Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 673, CESifo.
    10. Kant, Shashi, 2003. "Extending the boundaries of forest economics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 39-56, January.
    11. Amacher, Gregory S. & Malik, Arun S. & Haight, Robert G., 2005. "Nonindustrial private landowners, fires, and the wildland-urban interface," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 796-805, August.
    12. Cacho, Oscar, 2001. "An analysis of externalities in agroforestry systems in the presence of land degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 131-143, October.
    13. Polasky, Stephen & Costello, Christopher & Solow, Andrew, 2005. "The Economics of Biodiversity," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1517-1560, Elsevier.
    14. David Aadland & Charles Sims & David Finnoff, 2015. "Spatial Dynamics of Optimal Management in Bioeconomic Systems," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 45(4), pages 545-577, April.
    15. Loisel, Patrice & Elyakime, Bernard, 2018. "How to manage a small-scale multi-use forest?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 13-17.
    16. Malchow-Moller, Nikolaj & Strange, Niels & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2004. "Real-options aspects of adjacency constraints," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 261-270, June.
    17. Markku Ollikainen & Erkki Koskela, 2001. "Optimal Private and Public Harvesting under Spatial and Temporal Interdependence," CESifo Working Paper Series 452, CESifo.
    18. Juutinen, Artti, 2008. "Old-growth boreal forests: Worth protecting for biodiversity?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 242-267, November.
    19. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Mazzotta, Marisa J. & Spies, Thomas A. & Harmon, Mark E., 2013. "Applying the Ecosystem Services Concept to Public Land Management," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-20, April.
    20. Gregory, S. Amacher & Christine Conway, M. & Sullivan, Jay & Gregory, S. Amacher, 2003. "Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 137-164.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    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:uwp:landec:v:85:y:2009:i:4:p:712-726. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.