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.
Stocking, A. (2011). Unintended Consequences of Price Controls: An Application to Allowance Markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63, 120-136. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.
A point has to be made about hunting and outdoor life in Illinois, which is a common interest throughout Illinois. Though it may not interest everyone, the livelihood and a portion of income is g...
Our system today is inherently opposed to developing a relationship with the land because it depends on evidence in terms of monetary worth. “One basic weakness in a conservationist system based wholly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no economic value” (246). How much is a wildflower or a songbird worth? Therefore, this infinitely complex ecological system, which depends upon an unforeseeable amount of community-shaping mechanisms, tends to become increasingly diseased. “It tends to ignore, and thus eventually to eliminate, many elements in the land community that lack commercial values, but that are (as we know) essential to its healthy functioning” (252).
White, C. (2010). What's all the howling about? Managing wolves and elk in Idaho. Fair Chase
In 1987, when the Endangered Species Act was put into practice, the Federal Wildlife Service refused to list the Northern Spotted Owl. The FWS was then sued by the National Audubon Society to list the Species. During this time period, it was discovered that when examining the Northern Spotted Owl for its listing the FWS had looked at both the economics and the politics in ...
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.
Soledad, A. (2012). UNEP: World Congress on Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability. Environmental Policy and Law, 42(4/5), 204-205. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1239086063/fulltextPDF/938578CF70664516PQ/3?accountid=28180
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)
V6. N1:140-143. Netscape Web Sites - "The Web" Biology 65: Biological Conservation (lecture 1-Introduction). http://mamba.bio.uci.edu/pjbryant/bio65/lec01/b65/lec01.htm EDF Letter: Moratorium Ends, but Wildlife Needs a Better Law? http://www.edf.org/pubs/EDF-Letter/1996/Jul/l_mbean.html. Endangered Species Act:.
...hrow off the balance of the ecosystem. Different marine biodiversity requires different types of ways to conserve them, some need government and some do not. Depending on the different types of technology of public goods supplied, there are different ways to and different methods to preserve the marine biodiversity. We have looked at the different types of externalities that are associated with impure public goods (in this case marine biodiversity). We also looked at the three types of technology of public good supplies and see why it affects marine biodiversity. Lastly, we have discussed the incentives to conserve marine biodiversity, both private solutions and public solutions. To put it briefly, “wildlife exploitation and conservation involves various costs and benefits, which should all be taken into account to achieve an optimal outcome.” (Bulte, 1)
Leal, Donald R., and Holly Lippke Fretwell. "Users Must Pay to Save Our National Parks." Consumers' Research Magazine, August 1997. First Search. Online. 12 Oct. 1998.
Conca, K., & Dabelko, G. D. (2010). Institutions of Global Environmental Governance. In K. Conca, & G. D. Dabelko, Green Planet Blues (pp. 117-124). Boulder: Westview Press
There has been a tremendous attention from EU scholars about environmental policy. Since the 1970’s there has been numerous environmental crises and the emergency of an environmental, social movement in several European countries, but even after green politics in Europe quietened and environmental policy gained a ‘normal’ status in the “acquis communautaire”, this attention never subsided.
It is known that the world relies on capital. Without it the economy would collapse leading to war, famine, and death. Wildlife is an integral part of the world's economy. The world's populatio...