[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v74y1998i2p147-161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementing the Safe Minimum Standard Approach: Two Case Studies from the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Author

Listed:
  • Robert P. Berrens
  • David S. Brookshire
  • Michael McKee
  • Christian Schmidt
Abstract
In situations characterized by true uncertainty and potential irreversibility, the safe minimum standard (SMS) approach is a decision rule to protect some critical natural resource-unless the social costs of doing so are somehow "intolerable." The SMS has been discussed widely, but actual case studies remain rare. We present two case studies, focusing on endangered fishes in the Colorado and Virgin River systems, demonstrating that the legal framework of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is consistent with the SMS. The case studies incorporate the results from applied general equilibrium modeling and provide an avenue for investigating excessive economic consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:74:y:1998:i:2:p:147-161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147047
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Bulte, Erwin H. & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2001. "Harvesting and conserving a species when numbers are low: population viability and gambler's ruin in bioeconomic models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 87-100, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Irmi Seidl & Clem Tisdell, 2001. "Neglected Features of the Safe Minimum Standard: Socio-economic and Institutional Dimensions," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(4), pages 417-442.
    5. Gamini Herath, 2002. "Research Methodologies for Planning Ecotourism and Nature Conservation," Tourism Economics, , vol. 8(1), pages 77-101, March.
    6. Grijalva, Therese & Berrens, Robert P. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2011. "Species preservation versus development: An experimental investigation under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 995-1005, March.
    7. Farmer, Michael C., 2001. "Getting the safe minimum standard to work in the real world: a case study in moral pragmatism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 209-226, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:74:y:1998:i:2:p:147-161. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.