Reckoning perverse outcomes of resource conservation policies using the Ecological Footprint

Spatially expanding economies threaten the status of basic natural resources. In particular, wildlife habitats rarely benefit. Apart from protected areas, political-economic decision-making is ill-prepared to accommodate wildlife habitats with standard valuation methods. In some cases habitat loss is an inadvertent outcome of resource conservation policies intended to lower resource consumption.We recognize the term resource conservation as multifaceted, with a range of meanings from protecting wildlife habitats to efficiently allocating and using materials and energy. Resource conservation policies that spur economic benefits may produce unwanted outcomes. This is partly because linkages between economic and conservation goals seem tangential. Moreover, relevant information is imperfect and predictive tools are limited. This is particularly true for land converting impacts, which are often addressed after the fact, not during policy formulation, and can lead to successive resource degradation.We argue for the need to calculate the positive and negative land converting impacts from resource conservation policies that may expand the economy. Using the Ecological Footprint (EF) approach, we tested for potentially perverse outcomes of an existing resource conservation policy. In doing so, we conceptually mapped linkages among economic sectors to their cumulative effects of converting land. We assume an inverse relationship between economic expansion and land conservation.A New York State energy efficiency incentive program was tested using recent data from all tracked economic sectors. The economic data were converted in a series of steps from dollar values to energy units, to carbon dioxide emissions, and ultimately expressed in hectares of net land conversion. A policy scenario was compared to a reference scenario (no resource conservation policy), and the results anticipate a net gain in conserving land (0.6% reduced conversion). We interpret this as a potentially proportional offset favoring wildlife habitat retention. Two sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the policy’s impact on conserving land depended on both the affected economy’s scale (tripling reduces the estimated benefit to 0.2%), and the level of economic expansion that followed (doubling leads to a net loss of wildlands).This novel use of the EF approach may serve as a model for a more general approach to assessing a broader class of policies. It may also hold promise toward developing tools that can better examine well-intentioned resource conservation policies with uncertain outcomes. Our hope is that work like this can lead to better sets of tools for examining critical ecological–economic linkages for improved policy design.