PROTECTED AREAS AND MUNICIPALITY FINANCES

David Crommelynck (), Matthieu Leprince () and Olivier Thébaud ()
Additional contact information
David Crommelynck: AMURE - Aménagement des Usages des Ressources et des Espaces marins et littoraux - Centre de droit et d'économie de la mer - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - IFREMER - Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer - UBO - Université de Brest - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Matthieu Leprince: AMURE - Aménagement des Usages des Ressources et des Espaces marins et littoraux - Centre de droit et d'économie de la mer - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - IFREMER - Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer - UBO - Université de Brest - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Olivier Thébaud: AMURE - Aménagement des Usages des Ressources et des Espaces marins et littoraux - Centre de droit et d'économie de la mer - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - IFREMER - Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer - UBO - Université de Brest - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Protected areas are one of the major tools used to conserve biodiversity, but their effectiveness is regularly questioned. One key concern is that municipalities might refrain from enrolling land into protected areas because it might be detrimental to economic activity. As a consequence, protected areas may be located in places where economic activity is low rather than where biodiversity is most threatened. We study the allocation of protected areas in France using a rich set of data on biodiversity, economic activity, tax potential of municipalities and socio-demographics. We first show that biodiversity is highly positively associated with protection, even condi- tional on economic activity, thereby softening the concerns that protected areas are unrelated to conservation objectives. We also uncover a major gap in tax potential between protected and unprotected areas conditional on biodiversity. We show that most of this gap is explained by variables measuring the intensity of economic activ- ity. Finally, we find that socio-demographic and political variables do not explain the remaining gap. There are two possible explanations for our results: either protection kills economic activity, or areas are protected only where economic activity is not developed

Keywords: Biodiversity; Protected Area; Tax Wealth; Municipality (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-05244704v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Published in Annals of Economics and Statistics, 2024, 156, pp.167-206. ⟨10.2307/48804185⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-05244704v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05244704

DOI: 10.2307/48804185

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().