Module 24: The Tragedy of the Commons: Clear Cutting

common resource

anyone could use certain spaces for foraging, farming, tree cutting, hunting, mining

tragedy of the commons

tendency of a shared, limited resource to become depleted if not regulated in some way (people act in self-interest without regulation)

Requirements for tragedy of the commons to occur (2)

land must be public

land degradation must occur

externality

cost or benefit of a good or service that is not included in purchase price

negative externalities

cause environmental damage and no one is held responsible

internalizing externality

when an agent accounts for the full costs and benefits of his actions

3 ways to prevent tragedy of the commons

Private property

Government regulation

Self-regulation

Protected areas

vary from excluding almost all human activities to permitting harvest of biological and other resources for human benefit

Bureau of Land Management (BoLM)

grazing, mining, timber harvesting, recreation

United States Forest Service (USFS)

timber harvesting, grazing, and recreation

National Park Services (NPS)

recreation and conservation

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

wildlife conservation, hunting, and recreation

Rangelands

dry, open grasslands primarily used for grazing cattle

Forests

land areas dominated by trees and other woody vegetation and sometimes used for commercial logging

Clear-cutting

removing all or almost all trees within an area

Pros of clear-cutting (3)

1. cheap and easy

2. Good for fast-growing trees with high sunlight requirements

3. habitat diversity

Cons of clear-cutting (4)

1. Erosion

2. Reduces biodiversity

3. Increase temperatures

4. Releases carbon dioxide

Pros of selective cutting (2)

1. Ideal for shade-tolerant tree species

2. Less extensive environmental impacts

Cons of selective cutting (3)

1. Harder and more expensive

2. Logging roads

3. Artificial selection

Pros of ecologically sustainable forestry (2)

1. Maintains forest in as natural a state as possible

2. Often done without fossil fuels

Cons of ecologically sustainable forestry (2)

1. Harder, more expensive

2. Yields less timber

selective cutting

removes single tree or a relatively small number of trees from the larger forest

ecologically sustainable forestry

removes trees from the forest in ways that do not unduly affect the viability of other, noncommercial tree species

Reforestation

a large area typically planted with a single fast-growing tree species

depletes soil of important nutrients

Federal Regulation of Land Use (3)

USFS

1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

1973 Endangered Species Act

1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

mandates environmental assessment of all projects involving federal money or permits

impact statement

scope and purpose of project, environmental context, alternative approaches, environmental impacts of each alternative

1973 Endangered Species Act

law designed to protect and restore plant and animal species that are threatened with extinction, and the habitats that support those species

endangered

danger of extinction through most of its range

threatened

likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future

Economic decisions of tree cutting

clear cutting, selective cutting

Environment decisions of tree cutting

ecologically sustainable forestry

tree plantations

areas that are planted with a single, fast growing species for the purpose of logging