Policies for saving a rare Australian glider: economics and ecology

This paper considers the economics of conserving a species with mainly non-use value, the endangered mahogany glider. Three serial surveys of Brisbane residents provide data on the knowledge of respondents about the mahogany glider. The results supply information about the attitudes of respondents to the mahogany glider, to its conservation and relevant public policies, and about variations in these factors as the knowledge of participants of the mahogany glider alters. Similarly, data are provided and analysed about the willingness to pay of respondents to conserve the mahogany glider and how it changes. Population viability analysis is applied to estimate the required habitat area for a minimum viable population of the mahogany glider to ensure at least a 95% probability of its survival for 100 years. Places are identified in Queensland where the requisite minimum area of critical habitat can be conserved. Using the survey results as a basis, the likely willingness of groups of Australians to pay for the conservation of the mahogany glider is estimated and consequently their willingness to pay for the minimum required area of its habitat. Methods for estimating the cost of protecting this habitat are outlined. Australia-wide benefits are estimated to exceed the costs. Establishing a national park containing the minimum viable population of the mahogany glider is an appealing management option. This would also be beneficial in conserving other endangered wildlife species and ecosystems. Therefore, additional economic benefits to those estimated on account of the mahogany glider itself can be obtained. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Science-policy in environmental and health risk assessment: if we cannot do without, can we do better?

How can empirical evidence of adverse effects from exposure to noxious agents, which is often incomplete and uncertain, be used most appropriately to protect human health? We examine several important questions on the best uses of empirical evidence in regulatory risk management decision-making raised by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s science-policy concerning uncertainty and variability in human health risk assessment. In our view, the US EPA (and other agencies that have adopted similar views of risk management) can often improve decision-making by decreasing reliance on default values and assumptions, particularly when causation is uncertain. This can be achieved by more fully exploiting decision-theoretic methods and criteria that explicitly account for uncertain, possibly conflicting scientific beliefs and that can be fully studied by advocates and adversaries of a policy choice, in administrative decision-making involving risk assessment. The substitution of decision-theoretic frameworks for default assumption-driven policies also allows stakeholder attitudes toward risk to be incorporated into policy debates, so that the public and risk managers can more explicitly identify the roles of risk-aversion or other attitudes toward risk and uncertainty in policy recommendations. Decision theory provides a sound scientific way explicitly to account for new knowledge and its effects on eventual policy choices. Although these improvements can complicate regulatory analyses, simplifying default assumptions can create substantial costs to society and can prematurely cut off consideration of new scientific insights (e.g., possible beneficial health effects from exposure to sufficiently low 'hormetic' doses of some agents). In many cases, the administrative burden of applying decision-analytic methods is likely to be more than offset by improved effectiveness of regulations in achieving desired goals. Because many foreign jurisdictions adopt US EPA reasoning and methods of risk analysis, it may be especially valuable to incorporate decision-theoretic principles that transcend local differences among jurisdictions.