lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v89y2013icp14-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The biodiversity conservation game with heterogeneous countries

Author

Listed:
  • Winands, Sarah
  • Holm-Müller, Karin
  • Weikard, Hans-Peter
Abstract
Biodiversity is an essential resource, which we classify as conditionally-renewable. In order to achieve conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity virtually all nation states signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. In this paper we investigate how the heterogeneity of countries in regard to ecosystems and wealth influences the stability of international biodiversity conservation agreements both without and with transfers. We further examine the effect of different degrees of ecosystem substitutability. We model a coalition formation game with players that have a continuous conservation choice. The conservation benefit is dependent on wealth and ecosystem quality. Aggregation of global benefits respects differences in ecosystem substitutability. In case of transfers, a fund redistributes coalition benefits according to a sharing rule. The main finding is that in the absence of transfers, compared to the homogeneous situation, heterogeneity in ecosystems and wealth reduces the size of a stable coalition. The destabilising effect is stronger the higher the ecosystem substitutability. Optimal transfers facilitate a large stable coalition.

Suggested Citation

  • Winands, Sarah & Holm-Müller, Karin & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2013. "The biodiversity conservation game with heterogeneous countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 14-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:89:y:2013:i:c:p:14-23
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913000335
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gowdy, John M. & Mayumi, Kozo, 2001. "Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 223-237, November.
    2. Hans‐Peter Weikard, 2009. "Cartel Stability Under An Optimal Sharing Rule," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(5), pages 575-593, September.
    3. Rupert Gatti & Timo Goeschl & Ben Groom & Timothy Swanson, 2011. "The Biodiversity Bargaining Problem," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 609-628, April.
    4. Scott Barrett, 1994. "The biodiversity supergame," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 111-122, February.
    5. Lavoie, Marc, 2004. "Post Keynesian consumer theory: Potential synergies with consumer research and economic psychology," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 639-649, October.
    6. Andy Purvis & Andy Hector, 2000. "Getting the measure of biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 212-219, May.
    7. Stuart L. Pimm, 1997. "The value of everything," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6630), pages 231-232, May.
    8. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Andresen, Steinar, 2011. "Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1908-1915, September.
    9. Susanne Droege & Birgit Soete, 2001. "Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, North-South Trade, and Biological Diversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 149-163, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tapio Palokangas, 2017. "Regulation versus subsidies in conservation with a self-interested policy maker," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(1), pages 183-196, January.
    2. Irene Alvarado-Quesada & Hans-Peter Weikard, 2017. "International Environmental Agreements for biodiversity conservation: a game-theoretic analysis," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 731-754, October.
    3. Eichner, Thomas & Pethig, Rüdiger, 2018. "Self-enforcing Biodiversity Agreements with Financial Support from North to South," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 43-55.
    4. Pollesch, N. & Dale, V.H., 2015. "Applications of aggregation theory to sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 117-127.
    5. Scott Barrett, 2022. "A Biodiversity Hotspots Treaty: The Road not Taken," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(4), pages 937-954, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tim Swanson & Ben Groom, 2012. "Regulating global biodiversity: what is the problem?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 114-138, Spring.
    2. Figuieres, Charles & Leplay, Solenn & Midler, Estelle & Thoyer, Sophie, 2012. "The REDD Scheme to Curb Deforestation: A Well-designed System of Incentives?," Strategic Behavior and the Environment, now publishers, vol. 2(3), pages 239-257, September.
    3. Rupert Gatti & Timo Goeschl & Ben Groom & Timothy Swanson, 2011. "The Biodiversity Bargaining Problem," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 609-628, April.
    4. Tapio Palokangas, 2017. "Regulation versus subsidies in conservation with a self-interested policy maker," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(1), pages 183-196, January.
    5. Dapeng Cai & Jie Li, 2018. "North–South Negotiations on Emission Reductions: A Bargaining Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 157-177, September.
    6. Stéphanie Aulong & Charles Figuières & Robert Lifran, 2005. "Negotiation processes for the protection of biodiversity," Working Papers 05-08, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2005.
    7. Maheshika Senanayake & Iman Harymawan & Gregor Dorfleitner & Seungsoo Lee & Jay Hyuk Rhee & Yong Sik Ok, 2024. "Toward More Nature-Positive Outcomes: A Review of Corporate Disclosure and Decision Making on Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-24, September.
    8. Huikari, Sanna & Junttila, Hanna & Ala-Mursula, Leena & Jämsä, Timo & Korpelainen, Raija & Miettunen, Jouko & Svento, Rauli & Korhonen, Marko, 2021. "Leisure-time physical activity is associated with socio-economic status beyond income – Cross-sectional survey of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 study," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Kemp-Benedict, Eric, 2013. "Resource Return on Investment under Markup Pricing," MPRA Paper 49154, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. PK Gupta, 2018. "An Assessment of Relative Risks to Human/Ecological Health Biotech Crops versus Other Human Activities," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 1(2), pages 51-62, February.
    11. Andreas Löschel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2014. "On the Voluntary Provision of International Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 195-204, April.
    12. Ansink, Erik & Gengenbach, Michael & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2012. "River Sharing and Water Trade," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 122860, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Till van Treeck, 2008. "The political economy debate on ‘financialisation’ – a macroeconomic perspective," IMK Working Paper 01-2008, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
    14. Kronenberg, Tobias, 2010. "Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1488-1494, May.
    15. Faiers, Adam & Cook, Matt & Neame, Charles, 2007. "Towards a contemporary approach for understanding consumer behaviour in the context of domestic energy use," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4381-4390, August.
    16. Menezes, J. & Moura, B., 2022. "Pattern formation and coarsening dynamics in apparent competition models," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    17. Copiello, Sergio, 2017. "Building energy efficiency: A research branch made of paradoxes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1064-1076.
    18. Alejandro Caparrós & Michael Finus, 2020. "Public good agreements under the weakest‐link technology," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(3), pages 555-582, June.
    19. Harmen Verbruggen & Onno Kuik, 1997. "WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore: Environmental Diversity Versus Harmonization," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(4), pages 405-413, December.
    20. Alejandro Caparrós, 2016. "Bargaining and International Environmental Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(1), pages 5-31, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:89:y:2013:i:c:p:14-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    Лучший частный хостинг