IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v30y1999i3p461-474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorporating distributional considerations in the safe minimum standard approach: endangered species and local impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Berrens, Robert P.
  • McKee, Michael
  • Farmer, Michael C.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:30:y:1999:i:3:p:461-474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(99)00034-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Robert Innes & Stephen Polasky & John Tschirhart, 1998. "Takings, Compensation and Endangered Species Protection on Private Lands," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 35-52, Summer.
    2. John M. Gowdy, 1997. "The Value of Biodiversity: Markets, Society, and Ecosystems," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(1), pages 25-41.
    3. Michael C. Farmer & Alan Randall, 1998. "The Rationality of a Safe Minimum Standard," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(3), pages 287-302.
    4. Norton, Bryan, 1995. "Resilience and options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 133-136, November.
    5. Carol A. Jones & Katherine A. Pease, 1997. "Restoration-Based Compensation Measures In Natural Resource Liability Statutes," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 111-122, October.
    6. Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
    7. Richard T. Woodward & Richard C. Bishop, 1997. "How to Decide When Experts Disagree: Uncertainty-Based Choice Rules in Environmental Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(4), pages 492-507.
    8. Richard L. Stroup, 1997. "The Economics Of Compensating Property Owners," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 55-65, October.
    9. Palmini, Dennis, 1999. "Uncertainty, risk aversion, and the game theoretic foundations of the safe minimum standard: a reassessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 463-472, June.
    10. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 21-34, Summer.
    11. Berrens, Robert P. & Polasky, Stephen, 1995. "The Paretian Liberal Paradox and ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 45-56, July.
    12. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    13. Gardner M. Brown & Jason F. Shogren, 1998. "Economics of the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 3-20, Summer.
    14. 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.
    15. Robert P. Berrens & David S. Brookshire & Michael McKee & Christian Schmidt, 1998. "Implementing the Safe Minimum Standard Approach: Two Case Studies from the U.S. Endangered Species Act," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 147-161.
    16. Crowards, Tom M., 1998. "Safe Minimum Standards: costs and opportunities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 303-314, June.
    17. Rolfe, John, 1995. "Ulysses Revisited - A Closer Look At The Safe Minimum Standard Rule," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(01), April.
    18. Daniel W. Bromley, 1997. "Constitutional Political Economy: Property Claims In A Dynamic World," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 43-54, 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. De Groot, Rudolf & Van der Perk, Johan & Chiesura, Anna & van Vliet, Arnold, 2003. "Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 187-204, March.
    2. Starbuck, C. Meghan & Berrens, Robert P. & McKee, Michael, 2006. "Simulating changes in forest recreation demand and associated economic impacts due to fire and fuels management activities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 52-66, January.
    3. Todd L Cherry & Stephen J Cotten, 2012. "Environmental conflicts with reimbursement: experimental evidence," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(4), pages 3224-3232.
    4. Solomon, Barry D. & Corey-Luse, Cristi M. & Halvorsen, Kathleen E., 2004. "The Florida manatee and eco-tourism: toward a safe minimum standard," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 101-115, September.
    5. Kniivilä, Matleena & Ovaskainen, Ville & Saastamoinen, Olli & Kniivilä, Matleena, 2002. "Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 131-150.
    6. Alan Randall, 2014. "Weak sustainability, conservation and precaution," Chapters,in: Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 10, pages 160-172 Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    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:eee:ecolec:v:30:y:1999:i:3:p:461-474. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.