the role of ownership in public conservation decisions

The Role of Ownership in Public Conservation DecisionsAmy AndoUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Michael GetznerUniversity of Klagenfurt

© Ando & Getzner 2003 2

Structure of the presentationConservation policies -

determinants of conservation decisions

Wetlands in AustriaEmpirical analysisConclusions


Conservation decisionsIncreasing efforts to conserve/protect

biodiversitye.g. Natura 2000 in Europe, Wetlands Reserve Program in US, US Endangered Species Act

Conservation is costly (opportunity cost of land use) - strategic reserve site selection can do much to reduce cost (Ando et al. (1998), Wu and Boggess (1999)


Site selectionRationality of conservation decisions

ecologyeconomicspolitical economy (interest groups, ownership)

Are wetland reserves networks biased toward publicly owned lands?

This could be cost-ineffective.


Scientific and political determinants

Conservation policy decisionsare based in part on scientific considerationsbut political forces matter as wellAndo (1999), Weitzman and Metrick (1997), Getzner (2002)


Objective function of policy makers

What objective function are policy makers maximizing?

Stigler (1972), Peltzman (1976)Could be:• acreage maximization• ideological aims (environmental policy)• maximization of votes


Political economy of conservation

Political pressure from interest groups may influence policy choices

Stigler, Peltzman, Becker (1983)users (companies, agriculture, recreation) and owners of landother interest groups such as environmental groupspolitical (partisan) competition


Land ownersWith compensation for "takings",

political pressure is reduced, but asymmetric information makes it difficult to induce efficient landowner behavior (Innes, Polasky, and Tschirhart (1998)).


Hypotheses: Conservation decisions ...

... Influenced by:Science: ecological/physical/geographical factorsAcreage maximization (minimization?)Ownership (private land is less likely to be protected?)Political pressureUse value of the land - conflicts


Austrian wetlands: data

L o w er A u stria

Vien n a

B u rg en la n d

S ty r iaS a lzb u rg

C a rin th iaTyro l

Tyro lVo ra r lb erg

U p p er A u stria

N 1 0 0k m

Source: Steiner, 2001


Wetlands data base2,997 wetlands, total of 26,404

hectares15% are internationally significant60% are privately owned18% have some kind of protection43% are in or near natural state18% are not threatenedMost common threats are pasture

(25%) and drainage (18%)


Geographic distributionFederal province

(State) No. of

wetlands Percent

(n=2,997) Total size of area (in ha)

Percent (100%=

26,494 ha)

Average size of area (in ha)

Vienna 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00 Lower Austria 87 2.90% 748 2.82% 8.59 Burgenland 32 1.07% 9,833 37.12% 307.29 Upper Austria 217 7.24% 1,255 4.74% 5.78 Styria 321 10.71% 1,484 5.60% 4.62 Salzburg 427 14.25% 2,119 8.00% 4.96 Carinthia 354 11.81% 3,166 11.95% 8.94 Tyrol 449 14.98% 1,277 4.82% 2.84 Vorarlberg 1110 37.04% 6,612 24.96% 5.96 Total 2997 100%


Type of wetlands No. of wetlands Percent


Percent (100%= 26,494 ha)


Siltation wetland 267 8.91% 11,862 44.77% 44.43 Covered wetland 14 0.47% 164 0.62% 11.74 Transient wetland 132 4.40% 679 2.56% 5.14 Condensation water wetland

12 0.40% 30 0.11% 2.47

Marsh wetland 207 6.91% 1,458 5.50% 7.04 Complex wetland 18 0.60% 161 0.61% 8.93 Fed by rain 665 22.19% 3,942 14.88% 5.93 Swale wetland 20 0.67% 40 0.15% 1.99 Partially flow through wetland

805 26.86% 3,052 11.52% 3.79

Spring wetland 109 3.64% 278 1.05% 2.55 Flow through wet-land

483 16.12% 2,389 9.02% 4.95

Flooded wetland 265 8.84% 2,440 9.21% 9.21


Ecological significance

No. of wetlands Percent (n=2,997)

Total size of area (in ha)

Percent (100%= 26,494 ha)


local 940 31.36% 3,352 12.65% 3.57 regional 831 27.73% 4,503 17.00% 5.42 provincial 376 12.55% 2,794 10.55% 7.43 national 410 13.68% 2,885 10.89% 7.04 international 440 14.68% 12,960 48.92% 29.45


Conservation status No. of wetlands Percent


Percent (100%= 26,494 ha)


Protected landscape parts (incl. nat. mon.)

43 1.43% 255 0.96% 5.93

Protected landscape 164 5.47% 1,853 6.99% 11.30 State park 218 7.27% 1,877 7.08% 8.61 Natura 2000 112 3.74% 9,320 35.18% 83.21 National park 2 0.07% 1,696 6.40% 847.78 Sum of protected areas

539 17.98% 15,000 56.62% 27.83

No protection 2458 82.02% 11,494 43.38% 4.68


Acidity No. of wetlands Percent


Percent (100%= 26,494 ha)


basic 900 30.03% 14,786 55.81% 16.43 subneutral 984 32.83% 5,725 21.61% 5.82 sour 1113 37.14% 5,984 22.59% 5.38

Trophic factor No. of wetlands Percent


Percent (100%= 26,494 ha)


oligotrophic 811 27.06% 4,549 17.17% 5.61 mesotrophic 1917 63.96% 10,428 39.36% 5.44 eutrophic 269 8.98% 11,517 43.47% 42.81


Ecological state of wetlands No. of wetlands Percent


Percent (100%= 26,494 ha)


Natural state, wilder-ness

229 7.64% 731 2.76% 3.19

Near natural state 1048 34.97% 15,235 57.50% 14.54 Regenerating 27 0.90% 364 1.37% 13.48 Reduced natural state 145 4.84% 1,158 4.37% 7.99 Partially intact 197 6.57% 1,525 5.76% 7.74 Turf partially ex-tracted

44 1.47% 414 1.56% 9.42

Partially afforested 16 0.53% 89 0.34% 5.56 Partially drained 101 3.37% 733 2.77% 7.25 Partially intensive use

714 23.82% 4,068 15.35% 5.70

Pasture 395 13.18% 1,961 7.40% 4.97 Eutrophication 54 1.80% 110 0.41% 2.03 Heathland 20 0.67% 83 0.31% 4.16 Polluted 6 0.20% 19 0.07% 3.09 Buildings in the wetlands

1 0.03% 5 0.02% 4.83


Threats to wetlands No. of wetlands Percent


Percent (100%= 26,494 ha)


None 552 18.42% 2,862 10.80% 5.18 Agricultural use 20 0.67% 138 0.52% 6.89 Afforestation 256 8.54% 1,343 5.07% 5.25 Development area 40 1.33% 341 1.29% 8.52 Waking, visitors 158 5.27% 10,525 39.73% 66.62 Pasture 752 25.09% 3,588 13.54% 4.77 Landfill 20 0.67% 126 0.48% 6.31 Drainage 550 18.35% 2,473 9.33% 4.50 Intensification of use 255 8.51% 1,665 6.29% 6.53 Change of use 233 7.77% 2,176 8.22% 9.34 Turf extraction 45 1.50% 460 1.74% 10.23 Change of adjacent areas

116 3.87% 796 3.00% 6.86


Ownership

No. of wetlands Percent (n=2,997) Total size of area (in ha)

Percent (100%= 26,494 ha)


Private 1810 60.39% 20,968 79.14% 11.58 Public land 94 3.14% 524 1.98% 5.58 Church 32 1.07% 242 0.92% 7.59 Property of large owners

124 4.14% 633 2.39% 5.11

Cooperatives 454 15.15% 2,446 9.23% 5.39 Federal Forests 483 16.12% 1,678 6.34% 3.48 Total 2,997 100% 26,494 100% 8.84


Empirical analysis of conservation decisions

Logit analysis of the likelihood that a wetland is protected by provincial, national or international rules (n=2,997)

Ordered probit analysis of the conservation status of wetlands that are protected, ranked with increasing stringency (5=national park, 4=state park, 3=protected landscape, 2= partially protected landscape, 1=natural monument; n=539)


Variables included IDependent variables (Si) PROTECTED? Conservation of wetlands (=1 if wetland is protected by

provincial, national or international rules); n=2,997 PROTECTION TYPE

Conservation status of wetlands that are protected; 5=national park, 4=state park, 3=protected landscape, 2=protected landscape part, 1=natural monument; n=539

Explanatory variables Geographic variables (Gi) ELEV Elevation above sea level (natural log, in meters) HECTARES Size of the area (in hectares, natural log)


Variables included IIEcological variables (Ei) INTERNATIONAL =1 if protection and ecology of wetland is important on

an international level NATIONAL =1 if protection and ecology of wetland is important on

a national level ECOSTATE1 =1 if wetland is in a natural state (wilderness) ECOSTATE2 =1 if wetland is in a reduced natural state or

regenerating ECOSTATE3 =1 if wetland is largely transformed and used as

pasture CLASS =1 if wetland is a covered, arid or swale wetland

(contrary to spring or flow-through wetlands) TROPHIC =1 if wetland is an oligotrophic wetland (contrary to

mesotrophic or eutrophic wetlands) ACIDITY =1 if wetland is sour (contrary to basic or subneutral

wetlands)


Variables included IIIConflict variables (Ci) AGRICULTURE =1 if wetland is endangered by agricultural use USE =1 if wetland is endangered by intensifying and/or

changing use DRAINAGE =1 if wetland is endangered by drainage Ownership (Oi) FEDERAL =1 if wetland is owned by the Austrian Federal Forests

or other Federal entity PRIVATE_BIG =1 if wetland is owned by large private property

owners CHURCH =1 if wetland is property of the (Catholic) Church Concentration (Pi) SHARE Share of wetlands area in the total land area of the

district where the wetland is located (in %) POPDENS Population density at the district level (inhabitants per

square kilometer of permanently habitable area)


Decisions to protect

Dependent variable: PROTECTED? Independent variables: Coefficient z-Statistic Constant 6.0570 6.0201*** ELEV –1.2466 –8.4714*** HECTARES 0.3174 6.3931*** INTERNATIONAL 0.6432 4.0767*** NATIONAL 0.9995 6.8882***

ECOSTATE1 0.4499 2.3527**

ECOSTATE2 0.5467 3.5144*** ECOSTATE3 1.1166 5.8153*** CLASS 0.8945 5.9960*** TROPHIC –0.2988 –1.6361* ACIDITY 0.0775 0.4627 AGRICULTURE –0.5793 –3.8002*** USE –1.1433 –5.1190*** DRAINAGE –0.7304 –4.0935*** FEDERAL 0.5480 3.7980*** PRIVATE_BIG 0.4857 1.0949 CHURCH 0.2811 1.1589 SHARE –0.2354 –6.3510*** POPDENS 0.0005 2.3245**


Conservation status

Dependent variable: PROTECTION TYPE Independent variables: Coefficient z-Statistic ELEV –0.5286 -3.9921*** HECTARES 0.1316 2.9386*** INTERNATIONAL 0.5682 3.8965*** NATIONAL –0.0836 -0.6608 ECOSTATE1 –0.6641 -3.8188*** ECOSTATE2 0.0720 0.5334 ECOSTATE3 0.6039 3.1827*** CLASS –0.1118 -0.7793 TROPHIC –0.1527 -0.8340 ACIDITY 0.4979 3.0970*** AGRICULTURE –0.2636 -1.6972* USE 0.1954 0.8878 DRAINAGE 0.2508 1.4592

FEDERAL 0.5639 4.2594***

PRIVATE_BIG 0.6916 1.8020* CHURCH –0.5144 -2.3569**

SHARE 0.0931 2.9026***

POPDENS –0.0015 -6.8607***


Conclusions IEcological considerations matter:

"Important", ecologically useful, and easily threatened wetlands are more likely to be protected, and are protected more stringently


Conclusions IIEconomic/political factors matter

Protection is more likely if wetland is not in conflict with economic activity Protection is less stringent if agricultural interest groups are likely to be involved - likely to be political


Conclusions IIIOwnership matters

Protection is most likely and strict if federally ownedProtection of private land is actually more likely if owned by a single large entity than by many small owners - does concentration of ownership facilitate bargaining over compensation, reduce asymmetric information problem?


Good news and bad newsThis is not just "acreage maximization"There is some desirable incorporation

of opportunity costs into site-selection decisions

Some of the bias against protecting private land is likely to be cost-ineffective, driven by politics and asymmetric information.

the role of ownership in public conservation decisions

Documents

total size of area

haaverage size of area

conservation decisionswetlands

policy choicesstigler

ownership private land

land conflictsc

wetlands reserve program

getzneraustrian wetlands