Laserfiche WebLink
x <br />Transaction Costs: The costs for establishing markets in tradeable rights can be <br />high (Friedman 1984). The primary cost source would be the substantial ecologi- <br />cal research needed to determine viable habitat amounts. A bureaucratic mecha- <br />nism to distribute and monitor the allowable development rights would have to be <br />created. Field surveys to establish habitat size and unit value on each involved <br />private parcel would have to be conducted. Enhanced monitoring and enforce- <br />ment of habitat destroying or degrading activities would also be required. <br />Research Questions and Issues: Despite the theoretical soundness and allure of <br />tradeable development and pollution rights (See generally Coase 1960 and Dales <br />1968), their effectiveness in pollution control has not been proven (Oates 1990). <br />Marketing of water rights in the western United States, though, appears both <br />feasible, effective, and increasingly popular. Scrutiny of EPA's tradeable permit <br />program and water marketing are needed to understand better how to create an <br />effective and efficient development rights market for habitat. Legal research to <br />establish that the granting of development rights on a portion of private property <br />does not constitute a regulatory taking of the development rights for the remainder <br />of the property may also be prudent. <br />CONCLUSIONS AND THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED POLICY <br />The seven incentives, disincentives, and market preservation mechanisms pre- <br />sented here are intended to illustrate economic tools that could address many of <br />the causes of habitat loss on private lands in the United States. They are a series <br />of economic messages to private land owners that convey more fully the value of <br />the biological habitat they may own. The combination of regulatory prohibitions <br />and correct price information could more effectively guide private landowners to <br />make appropriate and socially beneficial decisions about the way they use their <br />lands that support habitat for endangered and imperiled species. In those cases <br />where development and conversion of habitat are appropriate, landowners will <br />face and pay higher prices. In those instances where habitat conversion is not <br />appropriate, landowners will be able to receive some economic return on their <br />property. <br />Obviously, these proposals are conceptual. They are presented for consideration <br />by the private sector, the environmental community, and regulatory and legisla- <br />tive officials. While versions and variations of nearly all these proposals are <br />being used for different land preservation and pollution control purposes in the <br />United States and Europe, additional research is needed to determine their poten- <br />tial utility. Habitat locations and requirements, and information on extant popula- <br />tion sizes for endangered, threatened, candidate, and imperiled plant and animal <br />species on private lands need to be better established. The National Biological <br />Survey should provide this vital information in the next five to ten years. Re- <br />search on the program costs, transaction costs, and efficiency of these proposals is <br />also needed. Our goal is to stimulate thinking and discourse, and begin develop- <br />15 <br />