Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1629–1646 | Cite as

Habitat conservation banking trends in the United States

  • Jagdish PoudelEmail author
  • Daowei Zhang
  • Benjamin Simon
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity protection and reserves

Abstract

Habitat conservation banking is often identified as a policy instrument for conserving endangered species on private lands in the United States. In this paper, we analyze the trends and the characteristics of habitat conservation bank credit supply and demand. We find 137 conservation banks conserving some 153,000 acres of land. About 66% of conservation credits were sold by private companies and credit price ranges between $1505 and $205,055 per credit in constant 2015 dollars. We observe that large urban areas have relatively high demand for conservation credits and that habitat conservation banking has become a business.

Keywords

Endangered Species Act Habitat conservation banking Market based policy instrument Conservation credit price Conservation credit supply Demand 

Notes

References

  1. Birnie K (2016) State of the mitigation markets. Paper presented at the National Mitigation Banking Conference, Forth Worth, TX. https://mitigationbankingconference.com/online-access/. Accessed 6 Oct 2016
  2. Boisvert V (2015) Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: an institutional analysis. Ecosyst Serv 15:134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnie R (1999) Endangered species mitigation banking: promoting recovery through habitat conservation planning under the Endangered Species Act. Sci Total Environ 240(1):11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bos M, Pressey RL, Stoeckl N (2014) Effective marine offsets for the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area. Environ Sci Policy 42:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown GM, Shogren JF (1998) Economics of the endangered species act. J Econ Perspect 12(3):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2012) Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Program. http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm
  7. Department of Interior (DOI), Office of Policy Analysis (2016a) Results from a survey of conservation banking sponsors and managers. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Department of Interior (DOI), Office of Policy Analysis (2016b) Bureau highlights. Fish and Wildlife Service.Washington, DC. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/budget/appropriations/2016/highlights/upload/BH063.pdf
  9. Drechsler M, Wätzold F (2009) Applying tradable permits to biodiversity conservation: effects of space-dependent conservation benefits and cost heterogeneity on habitat allocation. Ecol Econ 68(4):1083–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferraro PJ, McIntosh C, Ospina M (2007) The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: an econometric analysis using matching methods. J Environ Econ Manag 54(3):245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox J, Nino-Murcia A (2005) Status of species conservation banking in the United States. Conserv Biol 19(4):996–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gamarra MJC, Toombs TP (2017) Thirty years of species habitat conservation banking in the US: comparing policy to practice. Biol Conserv 214:6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Innes R, Polasky S, Tschirhart J (1998) Takings, compensation, and endangered species protection on private land. J Econ Perspect 12:35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lawrence A (2001) The emergence of conservation banking in Southern California. In Green K, Groenewegen P, Hofman P (eds) Ahead of the curve, vol 6, pp 93–105Google Scholar
  15. Lueck D, Michael J (2003) Preemptive habitat destruction under the Endangered Species Act. J Law Econ 46:27–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kreuter UP, Wolfe DW, Hays KB, Conner JR (2017) Conservation credits—evolution of a market-oriented approach to recovery of species of concern on private land. Rangel Ecol Manag 70(3):264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Madsen B, Carroll N, Moore B K (2010) State of biodiversity markets report: offset and compensation programs worldwideGoogle Scholar
  18. Maron M, Dunn PK, McAlpine CA, Apan A (2010) Can offsets really compensate for habitat removal? The case of the endangered red-tailed black-cockatoo. J Appl Ecol 47(2):348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin S, Brumbaugh R (2011) Entering a new era: what will RIBITS tell us about mitigation banking? Natl Wetl Newsl 33:4Google Scholar
  20. Pawliczek J, Sullivan S (2011) Conservation and concealment in SpeciesBanking.com, USA: an analysis of neoliberal performance in the species offsetting industry. Environ Conserv 38(04):435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Poudel J, Zhang D, Simon B (2018) Estimating the demand and supply of conservation banking markets in the United States. Land Use Policy 79:320–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rea CM (2017) Theorizing command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species habitat conservation banking in the United States. Theory Soc 46(1):21–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Santos R, Schroeter-Schlaack C, Antunes P, Ring I, Clemente P (2015) Reviewing the role of habitat banking and tradable development rights in the conservation policy mix. Environ Conserv 42(04):294–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. United State Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) Guidance for the establishment, use and operation of conservation banks. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2016) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy. September 2, 2016. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife ServiceGoogle Scholar
  26. Vatn A (2015) Markets in environmental governance. From theory to practice. Ecol Econ 117:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wheeler DP, Strock JM (1995) Official policy on conservation banks. California, Environmental Protection Agency, April 7th. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=110849&inline. Accessed 21 Aug 2018
  28. Wilcove DS, Lee J (2004) Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: lessons learned from three new programs. Conserv Biol 18(3):639–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wissel S, Wätzold F (2010) A conceptual analysis of the application of tradable permits to biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 24(2):404–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang D (2004) Endangered species and timber harvesting: the case of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Econ Inq 42(1):150–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang D (2016) Payments for forest-based environmental services: a close look. Forest Policy and Economics 72:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang D, Pearse PH (2011) Forest economics. UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forest Economics and Policy, School of Forestry and Wildlife SciencesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Climate Change and Resilience, Forestry DepartmentFAORomeItaly
  3. 3.Office of Policy AnalysisU.S. Department of the InteriorWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Forest Resources DivisionMichigan Department of Natural ResourcesLansingUSA
  5. 5.Department of ForestryMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations