Abstract
This paper provides an insight if an article authored by the Members of the Economic Growth Technical Review Committee. The review entails the relationship between wildlife conservation and economic growth as the main problem of the article. Through this paper, the theoretical and empirical methodologies used are highlighted. The paper concludes with a brief personal reflection on the article.
The article provides the review that seeks to determine the relationship between economic growth and wildlife conservation. The review is conducted by the Members of the Economic Growth Technical Review Committee. The article integrates the economic growth factors such as resources consumption, human aspirations and desires, and human population growth to determine the effect of economic growth to the wildlife. According to the authors, the economic growth is promoted by the technological progress, which consequently extends the breadth of the human niche. As a result of such expansions, the competitive exclusion of most wildlife species increases. The production and consumption of goods and services eventually require liquidation of natural capital such as habitats for wildlife (Czech et al. 2). Therefore, as a result, to the increased consumption and production, the wildlife habitats have declined in quality and extent, and correspondingly decrease of endangerment of various wildlife services. Therefore, the article aims to provide evidence of the fundamental conflict between the wildlife conservation and economic growth. The authors aim to solve this problem by use of the empirical and theoretical evidence in the economy of United States.
The article has used two main approaches as the main research methodology to indicate the relationship between the economic growth and wildlife conservation. The theoretical approach is based on the existing developed principles of economics and ecology. The purpose of the empirical evidence is to support the theoretical approach used. According to the author the theoretical approach is based on four fundamental concepts; carrying capacity, competitive advantage, niche breadth, and the trophic levels. Carrying capacity is defined as the “principle that population of every species have limits” (Czech et al. 12). According to Leopold factors that restrain populations are decimating factors such as hunting, severe weather, and pollution, and welfare factors such as space, water, shelter, food, and special species-specific needs. Some economists disqualify the potential conflict between the economic growth and wildlife conservation. However, there is a substantial evidence to support the economic carrying capacity as a function of per capita consumption and population size.
According to the competitive exclusion, “if two species compete for the same resources, one species can succeed only at the expense of the other.” (Czech et al. 12) In this case, those species with broad niches have a competitive advantage than those with narrow niches. The niche breadth is determined by factors such as body size and intelligence. The trophic levels are defined as the nutritional organization of the ecosystem. With a combination of this theory, it is evident that the human being is the main beneficiary for resources they share with nonhuman species. This is because humans have highest intelligence and large-bodied species compared to most of the non-animal species. Using the trophic levels, human settle at the peak of trophic structure and thus have a competitive advantage over the other species. The theories also indicate that the human technological progress has consequently led to niche expansion. Therefore, as the humans expand the use of natural capital to expand the economy, the more natural capital extracted from the non-human uses.
According to the empirical evidence, there is a strong correlation between the species' endangerment and economic growth in United States. The author developed the analysis of the gross domestic product and the number of threatened and endangered species in the United States by the use of graphs. The graphs indicated that there is a close relationship between the species' endangerment and economic growth. According to Freese and Trauger (2000), the economic interest affects the wildlife diversity and population in four main ways. First, there is overharvesting of wild plants and animals; second, conservation of habitat to alternative land use; third, economic specialization in production of wildlife, resulting to biodiversity loss and habitat change (Czech et al. 13). The last way is through the adverse environmental externalities such as contaminants.
The theoretical analysis and the empirical evidence concluded that there is a positive relationship between the species' endangerment and the economic growth. Therefore, the article suggests that there is a need for cross-disciplinary initiatives to enhance the success of the wildlife conservation. Therefore, there should be undertaken to ensure sustainability of ecosystems that supports both wildlife conservation and economic growth.
Using the Social Science Citation Index, there are various reviews that indicate a negative relationship between the wildlife conservation and economic growth. A research conducted by Czech (1-13) indicated that economic growth constraints that wildlife conservation. Czech suggests that The Wildlife Services should set an example of professionalism in conserving natural resources under which humans and wildlife coexists. Bulte et al. (29) provides an effective solution to mitigate the conflict between wildlife conservation and the economic growth (Ray 230). They indicated that economic instruments such as economic incentives have substantial potential to address the conflict between the wildlife management and economic growth.
In conclusion, I believe the article provides significant information that can be used to mitigate the problem facing the wildlife conservation. Both economic growth and wildlife are essential parts of human life, and effective policies should be developed to favor both. As the article suggests, professional knowledge of economics and ecology are both important elements that should mitigate this problem.
Works Cited
Bulte, Erwin H., Kooten V. C, and T. Swanson. "Economic incentives and wildlife conservation." (2003): Print.
Czech, Brian. "Economic Growth, Ecological Economics, and Wilderness Preservation." Munich Personal RePEc Archive 28.1 (2000): 4-14. Web. 21 Oct. 2014. <http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9038/>.
D. L., B. Czech, J. D. Erickson, P. R. Garrettson, B. J. Kernohan, and C. A. Miller, "The Relationship of Economic Growth to Wildlife Conservation." Wildlife Society Technical Review 03-1 (2003): 1-22. Web. 21 Sept. 2014. <http://wildlife.org/documents/technical-reviews/docs/EconomicGrowth03-1.pdf>.
Ray, Sterner T. "The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: A Review and Analysis." USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications (2009): 214-231. Web. 21 Sept. 2014. <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc>.
