This study investigates whether the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) relationship is supported for a measure of biodiversity risk and economic development across the United States (US). Using state-level data for all 48 contiguous states, biodiversity risk is measured using a Modified Index (MODEX). This index is an adaptation of a comprehensive National Biodiversity Risk Assessment Index. The MODEX differs from other measures in that it is takes into account the impact of human activities and conservation measures. The econometric approach includes corrections for spatial autocorrelation effects, which are present in the data. Modeling estimation results do not support the EKC hypothesis for biodiversity risk in the US. This finding is robust over ordinary least squares, spatial error, and spatial lag models, where the latter is shown to be the preferred model. Results from the spatial lag regression show that a 1% increase in human population density is associated with about a 0.19% increase in biodiversity risk. Spatial dependence in this case study explains 30% of the variation, as risk in one state spills over into adjoining states. From a policy perspective, this latter result supports the need for coordinated efforts at state and federal levels to address the problem of biodiversity loss.

A recently offered alternative to eliminating or mitigating hypothetical bias associated with stated preference surveys is the solemn oath script. While the efficacy of solemn oath script is still debatable, the objective of this analysis is to provide an initial field setting test of the solemn oath script to a particular discrete choice experiment survey application to solar energy. We conducted a discrete choice experiment survey with two treatment groups: with and without having respondents sign the solemn oath prior to taking the survey. Utilizing random parameter logit models in both preference-space and willingness to pay (WTP)-space, results provide no evidence that the solemn oath script lowers respondents’ WTP for the good in question. Either there is no hypothetical bias in this solar energy case study, which we are unable to test as there is no real expenditure at issue, or the solemn oath script may have limited application outside of the experimental lab and is not effective under every condition. Lastly, this calls for more research on the efficacy of a solemn oath script.

The safe minimum standard (SMS) approach is a collective choice process that prescribes protecting a minimum level of a renewable natural resource unless the social costs of doing so are somehow excessive or intolerably high. Arguments for the SMS are typically invoked in settings involving considerable uncertainty and potentially irreversible losses. However, the SMS is most commonly viewed as existing only on the periphery of thought in traditional environmental and resource economics. The specific objectives are: (1) to define the SMS approach generally and examine theoretical support, particularly for its application in endangered species decision settings; (2) to examine the relationship between an SMS approach and benefit-cost analysis (BCA); (3) to examine the relationship between an SMS approach and non-market valuation; (4) to compare an SMS approach to alternative definitions of sustainability; and (5) to review the general consistency of the SMS approach with the USA's Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Recent attention on this pragmatic policy approach has been something far greater than cursory, with advances and detailed discussions on theoretical considerations, philosophical underpinnings and case study applications. While the SMS emerges as a fairly coarse policy instrument, its pragmatic value is seen in complex environmental policy applications, such as endangered species protection.