In this paper, I will base on articles, Paying for International Environmental Public Goods and Economic Incentives and Wildlife Conservation to discuss what an impure public good is, the types of externalities associated with impure public goods, the technology of public good supply, and the types of economic incentives (positive and negative) that are created for impure public goods with different technologies of public good supply.
According to Paying for International Environmental Public Goods, which is written by Rodrigo Arriagada and Charles Perrings, it mainly discusses how to prevent international environmental public goods (IEPG). There are many offset systems within a nation, which are set to prevent public goods. However, there is not an international authority to protect the undersupplied public good. People can gain many benefits from IEPGs, but they don’t have solutions for the problem of undersupply. In this article, Public goods are defined as “pure” only if they are non-exclusive and non-rival in consumption, whereas impure public goods are either partially excludable or rival. It’s impossible for any state to gain these kinds of public goods by itself; its supply depends on worldwide cooperation. However, new networks have changed people’s social participation and the way of exchange ideas. This raises concerns within the ethical liabilities of individuals, organizations, countries and cooperation and the alternative forms of governance of the biosphere. According to the article, “Three common examples of public good supply technologies are ‘additive’, ‘best shot’, and ‘weakest link’ technologies.” The additive technology consists of simple sum and weighted sum public goods. The best shot public goods is benef...
... middle of paper ...
... policy recommendations. The authors concluded that best perspective for implementing economic incentives is to prize the use of land and habitat conversion and give some helpful directions for the future researches.
In conclusion, this paper discusses international environmental public goods and expresses the problem of undersupplied from Paying for International Environmental Public Goods. Also, this paper illustrates the problem of wild life exploitation and conservation and introduces the solutions to this problem from the article of Economic Incentives and Wildlife Conservation.
References:
Bulte, Eriwon H., G. Cornelis Van Kooten, and Timothy Swanson. "Economic Incentives and Wildlife Conservation." (2003). Print.
Arriageda, Rodrigo, and Charles Perrings. "Paying for International Environmental Public Goods." (2011). Print.
Conservation banking was modeled after the U.S. wetland mitigation banking system and the two programs share many similarities. However, unlike the wetland mitigation system, conservation offsets do not have a stated ‘no net loss’ goal, but instead have a species recovery goal. Both conservation and wetlands mitigation banks are privately or publicly owned lands which are protected and managed for its ecological value. By doing this, the bank sponsor generates habitat or wetland or stream credits to sell to developers or transportation departments who need to offset their impacts and comply with the legal requirements for the permitting of development or roadway projects. Both types of banks offer benefits to both the landowner that owns the natural resource and the developer that needs to purchase the credits. The landowner can take portions of their property that may have been considered unusable and turn it into an asset. The developer can streamline their permitting process by purchasing credits instead of implementing a mitigation plan themselves.
Mr. Middleton, a journalist, compiled an article describing, in his opinion, the flaws of the Endangered Species Act. He then attempts to back his opinion with studied analyses, researched facts, and testimonies. To summarize Middleton’s (2011) perspective, “Rather than provide incentives for conservation and environmental stewardship, the Endangered Species Act punishes those whose property contains land that might be used as habitat by endangered and threatened species” (p. 79). This quote is broad and generalized yet draws in readers and forces Middleton to spend the rest of the article backing this statement with more logic based facts.
Hunters are the biggest supporters of conservation financially. According to “Facts and Statistics on wildlife Conservation”(SDGFP) the hunters contribute more than three million dollars each day. This amounts to more than one and a half billion dollars a year. This money comes from license revenues, excise taxes (sporting good equipment, guns, license, ect.), and other taxed hunting revenues. All of this money goes to the protection and conservation of the wildlife habitat. Hunters and fishermen provide for more than seventy-five percent of the annual income of the fifty state conservation agencies. (2)
The advantages of biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, clean air, ecotourism and the preservation of natural and cultural heritage for posterity are widely acknowledged. However, potentially adverse social consequences of the creation protected areas are less well known. Protected Areas frequently require the eviction and exclusion of local groups, but do not always compensate for, or properly assess, the costs involved. Since Protected Areas cover more than 10 % of the earth’s land surface, and since more are mooted adequate to protect a representative sample of the world’s ecosystems, assessing the impacts of current costs and establishing a framework for evaluating future costs is an essential task (Franks). National parks and other protected places don't just secure the survival of threatened species. They also provide us with important gifts by, among other things, regulating local climate and river flows, protecting species that pollinate our crops, and simply being places of natural beauty. In recent years, political commitment to social equity in protected area conservation has grown, but it is not easy to tell what's good from bad. But, history shows that livelihoods and rights can suffer when states protect the areas in which people live, have sacred sites, or from which they take resources. The benefits of conservation can come at a
published in mid-August by researchers at Duke University in North Carolina and the U.S.-based non-governmental organisations Save America’s Forests and Land Is Life
The “Tragedy of the Commons” is an inevitable result of human nature coined by ecologist Garrett Hardin in his 1968 article of the same name. In the article Hardin reports that open resources such as game animals or rivers, “commons”, will be destroyed due to natural human selfishness by the individual. This is clear in the case of overfishing in Peru, for example, which environmental historian Gregory Cushman discusses in his book on Peruvian fishing industries. Hardin provides two solutions: either privatization or mutual coercion agreed upon by those most affected. Due to globalization the people who are most affected are far too diverse to collectively agree to cut back on consumption. The cause of over consumption no longer lies upon the
...nservation dollars . . . But defining too few taxes can hinder the effective conservation of imperiled biodiversity” (11).
“Economic and Ecological Impacts of Invasive Species”. Colorado State University- National Wildlife Research Center. 05 May 2014.
Throughout the world, conflicts over environmental issues abound. As technology progresses and our world continues to become more interconnected, an understanding of the worldâs environmental crises is important and necessary for the well-being of both humankind and the environment. This paper addresses and comments on the issues presented in the following books: Ecology of an African Rain Forest by Thomas T. Struhsaker, Green Guerillas edited by Helen Collinson, NIMBY Politics in Japan by S.Hayden Lesbirel, Where Environmental Concerns and Security Strategies Meet by James A. Winnefeld and Mary E. Morris, and Innovations in International Environmental Negotiation edited by Lawrence E. Susskind, William Moomaw and Teresa L. Hill. Innovations in International Environmental Negotiation has not been given a specific section for discussion, but is referenced in the section covering Where Environmental Concerns and Security Strategies Meet.
Wothington, D., Dann, N., and Bond, S. (2002). Issues in Conservation Management. Proceedings of the CIB W070 2002 Global symposium: Glasgow, 18-20 September pp. 292-302
Tietenberg, Thomas. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. Addison Wesley: New York, 2003. pp. 561. ISBN 0-201-77027-X, pp. 7-11.
Tang, C. & Tang, S. (2014). Managing Incentive Dynamics for Collaborative Governance in Land and Ecological Conservation . Public Administration Review, 74(2), 220–231.
Conservation, the protection of natural ecosystems, environment and wildlife, has been a major issue when people talk about the environment. There are many different kinds of conservation movements taking action nowadays, like clean water conservation, ecosystems conservation, or endangered species conservation. All three issues have been important and major issues after people started acknowledging how serious the problems are. The endangered species conservation movement is a worldwide phenomenon that covers an issue that will affect the Earth significantly. Not only the issue will affect the Earth, but it will also affect mankind. People, internationally, have been working hard to resolve the issue, and they are still working. As part of the conservation movement, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora helped regulating commercial uses of endangered species.
Economic valuation is an important component of environmental policy, although it is difficult to affix a cost on the environment and ecosystem services, it is a measurement that is relevant to most in society humans. Therefore, economic tools may be useful in reinforcing the importance of maintaining biodiversity and preserving fragile ecosystems.
The complexity of nature has made it difficult to put a price on it and the services it provides. Many environmental groups have put a price on ecosystem services in order provide socioeconomic aspect to many political discussions. This has been u...