Environmental Management

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 496–509 | Cite as

Optimal Advanced Credit Releases in Ecosystem Service Markets

Article
  • 332 Downloads

Abstract

Ecosystem service markets are popular policy tools for ecosystem protection. Advanced credit releases are an important factor affecting the supply side of ecosystem markets. Under an advanced credit release policy, regulators give ecosystem suppliers a fraction of the total ecosystem credits generated by a restoration project before it is verified that the project actually achieves the required ecological thresholds. In spite of their prominent role in ecosystem markets, there is virtually no regulatory or research literature on the proper design of advanced credit release policies. Using U.S. aquatic ecosystem markets as an example, we develop a principal–agent model of the behavior of regulators and wetland/stream mitigation bankers to determine and explore the optimal degree of advance credit release. The model highlights the tension between regulators’ desire to induce market participation, while at the same time ensuring that bankers successfully complete ecological restoration. Our findings suggest several simple guidelines for strengthening advanced credit release policy.

Keywords

Ecosystem service markets Principal agent model Wetland and stream mitigation banking Compensatory mitigation Offset market 

References

  1. BenDor T, Brozovic N (2007) Determinants of spatial and temporal patterns in compensatory wetland mitigation. Environ Manage 40:349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BenDor T, Doyle MW (2010) Planning for ecosystem service markets. J Am Plan Assoc 76(1):59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BenDor T, Riggsbee J (2011) A survey of entrepreneurial risk in U.S. wetland and stream compensatory mitigation markets. Environ Sci Policy 14:301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BenDor T, Riggsbee J, Doyle MW (2011) Risk and ecosystem service markets. Environ Sci Technol 45(24):10322–103330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonds M, Pompe J (2003) Calculating wetland mitigation banking credits: adjusting for wetland function and location. Nat Resour J 43(4):961–977Google Scholar
  6. Boyd J, Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Newell R, Palmer K, Sanchirico J, Walls M (2003) Trading cases: five examples of the use of markets in environmental and resource management, In: Oates WE (ed) The RFF reader in environmental and resource policy. Resources for the Future, Washington, pp 56–65.Google Scholar
  7. Burgin S (2008) BioBanking: an environmental scientist’s view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation. Biodivers Conserv 17:807–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corps and EPA (1995) Federal guidance for the establishment, use and operation of mitigation banks. Federal Register. 60 Fed Reg 228:58605–58614. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/mitbankn.html
  9. Corps and EPA (2008) Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources; final rule. Federal Register. 73 Fed Reg 70:19593–19705Google Scholar
  10. Doyle M, Yates A (2010) Ecosystem service markets under no-net-loss regulation. Ecol Econ 69:820–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EEP (2005) Ecosystem enhancement program 2004–2005 annual report. N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  12. ELI (2007) Mitigation of impacts to fish and wildlife habitat: estimating costs and identifying opportunities. Environmental Law Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. EPA (2011) State and individual water quality trading programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/trading/tradingmap.cfm. Accessed 29 Sep 2011
  14. Gardner R (2011) Lawyers, swamps, and money: U.S. wetland law, policy, and politics. Island Press, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner R, Radwan (2006) What happens when a wetland mitigation bank goes bankrupt? Natl Wetl Newsl 28:1,17–21Google Scholar
  16. Gardner R, Radwan (2009) Corporate shell games: LLPs, LLCs, and responsibility for mitigation sites. Natl Wetl Newsl 31:6–11Google Scholar
  17. Goldman R, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily G (2008) Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:9445–9448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hough P, Robertson M (2009) Mitigation under section 404 of the clean water act: where it comes from, what it means. Wetl Ecol Manage, 17(1):15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King D (2002) Managing environmental trades: lessons from Hollywood, Stockholm, and Houston. Environ Law Rep 32:11317–11320Google Scholar
  20. King D, Bohlen C (1994) Estimating the costs of restoration. Natl Wetl Newsl 16(3):3–5, 8Google Scholar
  21. Luenberger D (1995) Microeconomic theory. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Mack J, Micacchion M (2006) An ecological assessment of Ohio mitigation banks: vegetation, amphibians, hydrology, and soils. In: Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2006-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  23. Madsen B, Carroll N, Moore Brands K (2010) State of biodiversity markets report: offset and compensation programs worldwide. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington. http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf. Accessed 7 Jul 2010
  24. Mann R, Goldman-Carter J (2008) Avoidance: still the best solution to the compensatory mitigation challenge. Natl Wetl Newsl 30(4):8–10Google Scholar
  25. Marsh LL, Porter DR, Salvesen DA (eds) (1996) Mitigation banking: theory and practice. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin S, Brumbaugh R (2011) Entering a new era: what will RIBITS tell us about mitigation banking?. Natl Wetl Newsl 33(3):16–18, 26Google Scholar
  27. McKenney B, Kiesecker J (2010) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manage 45:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Myerson R (1982) Optimal coordination mechanisms in generalized principal–agent problems. J of Math Econ 10:67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Wetlands Policy Forum Protecting America’s Wetlands: An Action Agenda (1988) The final report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. The Conservation Foundation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. NRC (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the clean water act. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. Olson D (2005) Advanced information system to support Corps’ wetland regulatory program. Natl Wetl Newsl 27(2):19–21Google Scholar
  32. Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33:237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Portney P, Stavins R (2000) Public policies for environmental protection. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Reiss K, Hernandez E, Brown M (2009) Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: a Florida case study. Wetlands 29(3):907–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robertson M (2006) Emerging ecosystem service markets: trends in a decade of entrepreneurial wetland banking. Front Ecol Environ 4(6):297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruhl J, Glen A, Hartman D (2005) A practical guide to habitat conservation banking law and policy. Am Bar Assoc 1(20):27–32Google Scholar
  37. Shabman, L, Scodari, P (2004) Past, present, and future of wetlands credit sales. Discussion paper DP 04-48. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Welty C, Fraley L, Hanlon B, Hanson R, Kolb N, McGuire M, Sharkey S, Vicino T (2005) Final report: using an “impervious permit” allowance system to reduce impervious surface coverage for environmental sustainability (final report for EPA Grant: SU831880). Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Womble P, Doyle M (2012) Setting geographic service areas for compensatory mitigation banking. Harv Environ Law Rev 36(1):153–191Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd K. BenDor
    • 1
  • Tianshu Guo
    • 2
  • Andrew J. Yates
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of City and Regional PlanningUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.College of EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Economics and Curriculum for the Environment and EcologyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations