scholarly journals Takings, Compensation and Endangered Species Protection on Private Lands

1998 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 35-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Innes ◽  
Stephen Polasky ◽  
John Tschirhart
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Private Lands ◽  
The Public ◽  
Species Preservation ◽  
Endangered Species Protection

Preserving endangered species on private land benefits the public, but may confer cost on landowners if property is 'taken.' Government compensation to landowners can offset costs, although the Endangered Species Act does not require compensation. The authors survey private economic incentives for species preservation created by alternative property rights and compensation regimes. Compensation will effect investments in land and the willingness of landowners to collect and impart information about their land's preservation value. The authors also address government incentives and how deadweight costs of compensation will influence design of property rights, and how government's susceptibility to interest group pressure may cause inefficient preservation.

Property Rights Case Law and the Challenge to the Endangered Species Act

1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 725-741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn E. Dwyer ◽  
Dennis D. Murphy ◽  
Paul R. Ehrlich
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Case Law

scholarly journals Nearly Extinct in the Wild: The Vulnerable Transparency of the Endangered Species List

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Benjamin W. Cramer
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Species List ◽  
The Public ◽  
Government Transparency ◽  
In The Wild ◽  
Agency Action

This article reconstructs the Endangered Species Act as a government information statute. That Act makes use of an official list of vulnerable creatures that is used for agency action to save them from extinction. This article argues that the official list of species is not sufficiently accurate or transparent to citizens, so the compilation of that list does not satisfy the public interest goals of American environmental law or government transparency policy.

scholarly journals Assessing public commitment to endangered species protection: A Canadian case study

FACETS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 178-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.L. McCune ◽  
Anja M. Carlsson ◽  
Sheila Colla ◽  
Christina Davy ◽  
Brett Favaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Human Activities ◽  
Industrial Development ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Species Conservation ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Private Property Rights

Preventing the extinction of species will require limiting human activities in key areas, but it is unclear to what extent the public is committed to these limits and the associated costs. We commissioned an online survey of 1000 Canadians and asked them if it is important to prevent the extinction of wild species in Canada. We used specific scenarios illustrating the need for limits to personal activities, private property rights, and industrial development to further test their support. The respondents were strongly committed to species conservation in principle (89% agree), including the need to limit industrial development (80% agree). There was less support for limiting private property rights (63% agree), and more uncertainty when scenarios suggested potential loss of property rights and industry-based jobs. This highlights the high level of public concern regarding the economic impacts of preventing extinctions, and the need for more programs to encourage voluntary stewardship of endangered species on private land. Opinion polls that measure public support for conservation without acknowledging the concessions required may result in overly optimistic estimates of the level of support. Most Canadians in our sample supported endangered species conservation even when the necessity of limiting human activities was explicitly stated.

scholarly journals Ten bridges on the road to recovering Canada’s endangered species

FACETS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1088-1127
Author(s):  
Daniel Kraus ◽  
Stephen Murphy ◽  
Derek Armitage
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Building Capacity ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Road ◽  
Recovery Planning ◽  
On The Road ◽  
Endangered Species Protection ◽  
Developed Nations

Wildlife is declining around the world. Many developed nations have enacted legislation on endangered species protection and provide funding for wildlife recovery. Protecting endangered species is also supported by the public and judiciary. Yet, despite what appear as enabling conditions, wild species continue to decline. Our paper explores pathways to endangered species recovery by analyzing the barriers that have been identified in Canada, the United States, and Australia. We summarize these findings based on Canada’s Species at Risk Conservation Cycle (assessment, protection, recovery planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation) and then identify 10 “bridges” that could help overcome these barriers and bend our current trajectory of wildlife loss to recovery. These bridges include ecosystem approaches to recovery, building capacity for community co-governance, linking wildlife recovery to ecosystem services, and improving our storytelling about the loss and recovery of wildlife. The focus of our conclusions is the Canadian setting, but our findings can be applied in other national and subnational settings to reverse the decline of wildlife and halt extinction.

scholarly journals Status of the recovery mandate under section 7(a)(1) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg Evansen ◽  
Heather Harl ◽  
Andrew Carter ◽  
Jacob Malcom
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Current Status ◽  
The Public ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Internet Searches ◽  
Policy Guidance ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Imperiled Species

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is widely considered to be one of the strongest laws for protecting imperiled wildlife, with nearly all species protected under the law still existing today. Among the ESA’s strongest provisions, at least as written, is the requirement under section 7(a)(1) that federal agencies use their authorities to help recover imperiled species. New initiatives like 30x30, the campaign to conserve at least thirty percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, offer opportunities to reinvigorate and expand 7(a)(1) programs to play a significant role in biodiversity conservation. To gauge the current status of 7(a)(1) plans and assess their effectiveness, we collected all section 7(a)(1) materials available to the public through internet searches and direct requests to agencies. We evaluated the scope of existing 7(a)(1) programs and found that despite the clear potential benefits of a strong 7(a)(1) program, the section has been significantly underused by federal agencies. Further, we show that existing plans are highly inconsistent in content and style, and we trace that inconsistency to the lack of policy guidance for their creation and implementation. Based on these findings, we recommend four strategies for improving 7(a)(1) implementation: establishment of formal guidance from federal wildlife agencies, tailored guidance from other federal agencies to help them meet their 7(a)(1) obligation, and dedicated funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document