Biodiversity and geography

Rauscher, Michael; Barbier, Edward B.

doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2009.11.016

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 For a more realistic land-use approach based on the new economic geography with centrifugal-centripetal forces in economic and ecological systems, see Rauscher and Barbier (2010). 5 Panayotou (1994) describes a similar market concept without providing a formal analysis.…”

Section: The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coaseian Biodiversity Conservation. Who Benefits?

Eichner

Pethig

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider a world economy, in which the global public good 'biodiversity' is positively correlated with that share of land which is protected by land-use restrictions against the deterioration of habitats and ecosystems. The willingness-to-pay for biodiversity conservation is positive in 'rich' developed countries (North), but very low in 'poor' developing countries (South). Taking the no-policy scenario (Regime 1) as our point of departure, we analyze the changes in allocations and welfare when the North financially supports biodiversity conservation in the South -as stipulated in the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). We model that support as a market for biodiversity conservation and distinguish the cases, in which the North does (Regime 3) or does not (Regime 2) coordinate its biodiversity conservation actions. Our numerical examples exhibit various unexpected and even undesirable results. The move from Regime 1 to Regime 2 hardly improves welfare and biodiversity in our examples irrespective of whether governments act strategically. That may explain the low level of North's financial support of biodiversity in the South we observe in practice. Without strategic action, the move from Regime 1 to 3 enhances aggregate welfare, because Regime 3 is efficient, but the North or the South may be worse off due to unfavorable changes in their terms-of-trade. If governments act strategically, the aggregate welfare may decline when moving from Regime 1 to 3, but the welfare changes with opposite signs for North and South tend to be smaller than without strategic action.

show abstract

Section: The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coaseian Biodiversity Conservation. Who Benefits?

Eichner

Pethig

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The importance of biodiversity management is discussed in several contributions in economic literature (see, e.g.,Rauscher and Barbier, 2010;Vardas and Xepapadeas, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Land use and pollution in a two-sector evolutionary model

Antoci

Borghesi

Iannucci

et al. 2019

Structural Change and Economic Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an evolutionary dual model in order to study heterogeneity of agriculture from an environmental perspective. In standard visions, land use changes are driven by productivity differentials across agricultural subsectors. Our model adds other two factors which can indirectly affect land allocation patterns: differences in environmental impact intensity and environmental vulnerability. By including these two dimensions in a parsimonious model, we shed new light on constraints or ability for an economy to reach a sectoral land allocation which efficiently balances environmental burden, environmental constraints and productivity.We find that, in case of trade-off between the three dimensions, farmers' welfare grows along structural changes which allocate increasingly more land to the agricultural subsector with lower pollution intensity regardless its resilience and land productivity performance.

show abstract

“…Moreover, if pollution or climate change manifests itself through accumulated emissions, then inefficiency results even if pollution is only local. Another body of literature addresses the impact of migration on specialization patterns and the possibility of agglomerations (Elbers and Withagen, 2004; Lange and Quaas, 2007; Eppink and Withagen, 2009; Rauscher and Barbier, 2010). The analytical vehicle used here is an extension of the well-known New Economic Geography methodology, in a context where migration is due to differences in real wages as well as the state of biodiversity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The climate change, migration and conflict nexus

Withagen

2014

Envir. Dev. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early this year, Thomas Friedman (2014) reported on a (Wikileaks) cable sent in 2008 from the US Embassy in Damascus concerning the drought Syria had been suffering from since 2006 (and which was going to last for another couple of years). The Syrian UN food and agriculture representative was seeking assistance for among others 15,000 small-holding farmers, who might otherwise seek jobs in Syrian cities (leaving many women and children behind in poverty) and who could arguably add to already existing social and economic tensions in those cities.

show abstract

Biodiversity and geography

Cited by 13 publications

References 39 publications

Coaseian Biodiversity Conservation. Who Benefits?

Coaseian Biodiversity Conservation. Who Benefits?

Land use and pollution in a two-sector evolutionary model

The climate change, migration and conflict nexus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About