Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Eirik Amundsen, T. Bjørndal, J. Conrad (1995)
Open access harvesting of the Northeast Atlantic minke whaleEnvironmental and Resource Economics, 6
T. Swanson (1994)
The Economics of Extinction Revisited and Revised: A Generalised Framework for the Analysis of the Problems of Endangered Species and Biodiversity Losses, 46
R. Berrens, D. Brookshire, M. McKee, Christian Schmidt (1998)
Implementing the safe minimum standard approach: two case studies from the U.S. Endangered Species ActLand Economics, 74
Y. Baskin (1994)
Ecologists dare to ask: how much does diversity matter?Science, 264 5156
Johansson‐Stenman Johansson‐Stenman (1998)
The importance of ethics in environmental economics.Environmental and Resource Economics, 11
R. Perman, Yue Ma, M. Common, D. Maddison, J. McGilvray (1996)
Natural resource and environmental economics
J. Loomis, D. White (1996)
Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysisEcological Economics, 18
Howarth Howarth, Norgaard Norgaard (1993)
Intergenerational changes and the social discount rate.Environmental and Resource Economics, 3
J. Conrad, T. Bjørndal (1993)
On the Resumption of Commercial Whaling: The Case of the Minke Whale in the Northeast AtlanticArctic, 46
R. Howarth, R. Norgaard (1993)
Intergenerational transfers and the social discount rateEnvironmental and Resource Economics, 3
P. Ehrlich, E. Wilson (1991)
Biodiversity Studies: Science and PolicyScience, 253
M. Farmer, A. Randall (1998)
The Rationality of a Safe Minimum StandardLand Economics, 74
(1995)
Intergenerational choices under global environmental change
(1995)
Intergenerational choices under global environmental change. Pages 111-138 in
R. Simpson, R. Sedjo, John Reid (1996)
Valuing Biodiversity for Use in Pharmaceutical ResearchJournal of Political Economy, 104
G. Kooten, E. Bulte (1999)
How much primary coastal temperate rain forest should society retain? Carbon uptake, recreation and other valuesCanadian Journal of Forest Research, 29
R. Costanza, R. D'arge, R. Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. Raskin, P. Sutton, M. Belt (1997)
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capitalNature, 387
O. Johansson-Stenman (1998)
The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence ValuesEnvironmental and Resource Economics, 11
M. Soulé (1991)
Conservation: tactics for a constant crisis.Science, 253 5021
C. Kooten, E. Bulte (1998)
How much ancient forest should society retain?: carbon uptake, recreation and other values
G. Daly (2000)
Ethics and economics.Nursing economic$, 18 4
M. Sagoff (2007)
The Economy of the Earth: Acknowledgments
R. Bishop (1978)
Endangered Species and Uncertainty: The Economics of a Safe Minimum StandardAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60
M. Common (1995)
Sustainability and policy
E. Bulte, G. Kooten (1999)
Marginal Valuation of Charismatic Species: Implications for ConservationEnvironmental and Resource Economics, 14
E. Bulte, H. Folmer, W. Heijman (1998)
Dynamic and Static Approaches to Mixed Good Management: The Case of Minke Whales in the Northeast AtlanticEuropean Review of Agricultural Economics, 25
(1990)
Mathematical bioeconomics: the optimal harvesting of renewable resources
(1999)
The economics of tropical deforestation. Pages 198-249 in H. Folmer and T. Tietenberg, editors. The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics
Abstract: Although economic analysis can be used to argue for preservation of species and habitats, many natural assets represent inferior investments in society's asset portfolio. We demonstrate this for the case of ancient temperate rainforests and minke whales ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata). For both rainforests and whales, we determined their value for harvest and balanced this against society's valuation of the preserved stock. For the market and nonmarket data available, we then determined how much rainforest and how many minke whales global society should keep in its asset portfolio. Although ecologists increasingly attempt to justify preservation of biological assets on economic grounds, we argue that this might be a dangerous approach to take. Ultimately, it may be necessary to reexamine the ethical foundations for conservation of nature and biodiversity, including the economist's use of utilitarianism. We suggest that the safe minimum standard approach may prove useful in practice.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Feb 1, 2000
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.