Yes, according to these authors, who call for cooperative ecosystem management that goes beyond the win-lose negotiations that plague most environmental debates. They advocate a balanced approach that considers environmental and development interests simultaneously. After an overview of the Endangered Species Act and the controversies surrounding its implementation, Hoffman et al. suggest the economic benefits that can be gained from protecting endangered species. Some plant materials and plant by-products are stronger and more lightweight than synthetic materials. Food and animal stocks rely on genetic diversity.
Wetlands can serve as purification and detoxification systems.
And an increasingly urban population is more interested in recreational use of land, rather than logging, mining, and grazing. On the other hand, say the authors, economics should not be the sole criterion for determining the merit of endangered species protection. Promoting economic incentives by reforming tax codes, establishing special trust funds, swapping government land for more valuable private land, and charging land-use fees for hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping. Reducing uncertainty for affected groups by establishing fixed time periods and streamlining ESA procedures. This involves generating more information about species and ecosystems, encouraging collaborative problem solving, and providing adequate resources for implementation.