Implementing the safe minimum standard approach: two case studies from the U.S. Endangered Species Act

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.

[1]  Edward H. Graham,et al.  Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies , 1953 .

[2]  David Pearce,et al.  THE LIMITS OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AS A GUIDE TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY , 1976 .

[3]  N. M. Idaikkadar,et al.  CHAPTER 10 – Census of Agriculture , 1979 .

[4]  D. Jolley.  Two decades of change , 1981 .

[5]  B. Norton.  Why Preserve Natural Variety? , 2014 .

[6]  W. Hyde.  Marginal Costs of Managing Endangered Species:The Case of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker , 1989 .

[7]  Daniel J. Rohlf.  The Endangered Species Act: A Guide to Its Protections and Implementation , 1989 .

[8]  M. Sagoff,et al.  The Economy of the Earth: The Allocation and Distribution of Resources , 2007 .

[9]  George E. Foy.  Economic sustainability and the preservation of environmental assets , 1990 .

[10]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis? , 1990 .

[11]  C. Tisdell.  Economics and the debate about preservation of species, crop varieties and genetic diversity , 1990 .

[12]  Definition of adverse effects for the purpose of establishing secondary national ambient air-quality standards. October-December 1990 , 1990 .

[13]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Endangered Species and the Safe Minimum Standard , 1991 .

[14]  Ronald J. Glass,et al.  MEASURING THE EXISTENCE VALUE OF WILDLIFE - WHAT DO CVM ESTIMATES REALLY SHOW , 1991 .

[15]  Economic analysis of critical habitat designation effects for the northern spotted owl , 1992 .

[16]  J. Shoven,et al.  Applying general equilibrium , 1993 .

[17]  N. Hanley,et al.  Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment , 1994 .

[18]  Claire A. Montgomery,et al.  The Marginal Cost of Species Preservation: The Northern Spotted Owl , 1994 .

[19]  ULYSSES REVISITED - A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SAFE MINIMUM STANDARD RULE , 1995 .

[20]  D. Pearce,et al.  Threshold effects and incentives for the conservation of biodiversity , 1994 .

[21]  Robert E. Ulanowicz,et al.  Scale and Biodiversity Policy: A Hierarchical Approach , 1994 .

[22]  Michael A. Toman,et al.  Economics and "Sustainability": Balancing Trade-offs and Imperatives , 1994 .

[23]  D. Hubin.  The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis , 1994, Economics and Philosophy.

[24]  A. Vatn,et al.  Choices without Prices without Apologies , 1994 .

[25]  Bryan G. Norton,et al.  Evaluating ecosystem states: Two competing paradigms , 1995 .

[26]  C. Russell.  Are we lost in the vale of ignorance or on the mountain of principle , 1995 .

[27]  R. Berrens,et al.  The safe minimum standard approach: an alternative to measuring non-use values for environmental assets? , 1996 .

[28]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  The economics of sustainability , 1996 .

[29]  R. Berrens,et al.  Incorporating distributional considerations in the safe minimum standard approach: endangered species and local impacts , 1999 .

[30]  Dennis J. Palmini.  Uncertainty, risk aversion, and the game theoretic foundations of the safe minimum standard: a reassessment , 1999 .