1. The Role of Ownership in Public Conservation Decisions
Amy Ando
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Getzner University of Klagenfurt

2. Structure of the presentation
Conservation policies - determinants of conservation decisions
Wetlands in Austria
Empirical analysis
Conclusions

3. Conservation decisions
Increasing efforts to conserve/protect biodiversity
e.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)

4. Site selection Rationality of conservation decisions
ecology
economics
political economy (interest groups, ownership)
Are wetland reserves networks biased toward publicly owned lands?
This could be cost-ineffective.

5. Scientific and political determinants
Conservation policy decisions
are based in part on scientific considerations
but political forces matter as well
Ando (1999), Weitzman and Metrick (1997), Getzner (2002)

6. 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

7. Political economy of conservation
Political pressure from interest groups may influence policy choices
Stigler, Peltzman, Becker (1983)
users (companies, agriculture, recreation) and owners of land
other interest groups such as environmental groups
political (partisan) competition

8. Land owners
With compensation for "takings", political pressure is reduced, but asymmetric information makes it difficult to induce efficient landowner behavior (Innes, Polasky, and Tschirhart (1998)).

9. Hypotheses: Conservation decisions ...
... Influenced by:
Science: ecological/physical/geographical factors
Acreage maximization (minimization?)
Ownership (private land is less likely to be protected?)
Political pressure
Use value of the land - conflicts

10. Austrian wetlands: data
Source: Steiner, 2001

11. Wetlands data base 2,997 wetlands, total of 26,404 hectares
15% are internationally significant
60% are privately owned
18% have some kind of protection
43% are in or near natural state
18% are not threatened
Most common threats are pasture (25%) and drainage (18%)

12. Geographic distribution

13. Type of wetlands

14. Ecological significance

15. Conservation status

16. Acidity
Trophic factor

17. Ecological state of wetlands

18. Threats to wetlands

19. Ownership

20. 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)

21. Variables included I

22. Variables included II

23. Variables included III

24. Decisions to protect

25. Conservation status

26. Conclusions I Ecological considerations matter:
"Important", ecologically useful, and easily threatened wetlands are more likely to be protected, and are protected more stringently

27. Conclusions II Economic/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

28. Conclusions III Ownership matters
Protection is most likely and strict if federally owned
Protection 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?

29. Good news and bad news This 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.