Assignment of measurable costs and benefits to wildlife conservation projects
S. A. Shwiff A E , A. Anderson A , R. Cullen B , P. C. L. White C and S. S. Shwiff D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A USDA APHIS WS, National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA.
B Accounting, Economics and Finance Department, Room 202, Commerce Building, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Christchurch 7647, New Zealand.
C Environment Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
D Economics and Finance Department, Texas A&M University-Commerce, Commerce, TX 75428, USA.
E Corresponding author. Email: Stephanie.a.shwiff@aphis.usda.gov
Wildlife Research 40(2) 134-141 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12102
Submitted: 26 May 2012 Accepted: 7 November 2012 Published: 11 December 2012
Abstract
Success of wildlife conservation projects is determined by a suite of biological and economic factors. Donor and public understanding of the economic factors is becoming increasingly central to the longevity of funding for conservation efforts. Unlike typical economic evaluation, many costs and benefits related to conservation efforts are realised in non-monetary terms. We identify the types of benefits and costs that arise from conservation projects and examine several well developed techniques that economists use to convert benefits and costs into monetary values so they may be compared in a common metric. Costs are typically more readily identifiable than benefits, with financial project costs reported most frequently, and opportunity and damage costs reported much less often. Most current evaluation methods rely primarily on cost-effectiveness analysis rather than cost–benefit analysis, a result of the difficultly in measuring benefits. We highlight improved methodology to measure secondary costs and benefits on a broader spatial scale, thereby promoting project efficacy and long-term success. Estimation of the secondary effects can provide a means to engage a wider audience in discussions of wildlife conservation by illuminating the relevant impacts to income and employment in local economies.
Additional keywords: benefit-transfer, conservation planning, contingent valuation, cost-effectiveness, cost–benefit analysis, economic evaluation, human dimensions, modeling, regional economic analysis and travel cost method.
References
Adams, W. M., and Infield, M. (2003). Who is on the Gorilla’s Payroll? Claims on tourist revenue from a Ugandan National Park. World Development 31, 177–190.| Who is on the Gorilla’s Payroll? Claims on tourist revenue from a Ugandan National Park.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Adams, V. M., Pressey, R. L., and Naidoo, R. (2010). Opportunity costs: who really pays for conservation? Biological Conservation 143, 439–448.
| Opportunity costs: who really pays for conservation?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Armsworth, P. R., Cantu-Salazar, L., Parnell, M., Davies, Z. G., and Stoneman, R. (2011). Management costs for small protected areas and economies of scale in habitat conservation. Biological Conservation 144, 423–429.
| Management costs for small protected areas and economies of scale in habitat conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Blyth, S., James, A., and Kapos, V. (2003). Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100, 1046–1050.
| Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXhtF2gtr4%3D&md5=3d4ece80f86ea3181ba81fb2ef41e218CAS |
Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanleys, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D., Sugden, R., and Swanson, J. (2002). ‘Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques. A manual.’ (Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK.)
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., and Weimer, D. L. (1996). ‘Cost–Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.’ (Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.)
Brockington, D., and Igoe, J. (2006). Evictions for conservation: a global overview. Conservation & Society 4, 424–470.
Brockington, D., Igoe, J., and Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Conservation human rights and poverty reduction. Conservation Biology 20, 250–252.
| Conservation human rights and poverty reduction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brouwer, R. (2000). Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics 32, 137–152.
| Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brown, G., Layton, D., and Lazo, J. (1994). Valuing habitat and endangered species. Discussion paper 94-1. Institute for Economic Research, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Brown, T., Champ, P., Bishop, R., and McCollum, D. (1996). Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics 72, 152–166.
| Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Busch, J., and Cullen, R. (2009). Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of yellow-eyed penguin recovery. Ecological Economics 68, 762–776.
| Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of yellow-eyed penguin recovery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Butler, J. A. (2000). The economic costs of wildlife predation on livestock in Gokwe communal land, Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology 38, 23–30.
| The economic costs of wildlife predation on livestock in Gokwe communal land, Zimbabwe.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Caudell, J. N., Shwiff, S. A., and Slater, M. T. (2010). Using a cost-effectiveness model to determine the applicability of OvoControl G to manage nuisance Canada geese. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 843–848.
| Using a cost-effectiveness model to determine the applicability of OvoControl G to manage nuisance Canada geese.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cernea, M. M., and Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty risks and national parks: policy issues in conservation and resettlement. World Development 34, 1808–1830.
| Poverty risks and national parks: policy issues in conservation and resettlement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chambers, C. M., and Whitehead, J. C. (2003). A contingent valuation estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics 26, 249–267.
| A contingent valuation estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Champ, P., Boyle, K. J., and Brown, T. (2003). ‘A primer on non market valuation.’ (Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.)
Christie, M., Fazey, I., and Hyde, T. (2009). ‘Economic Valuation of the Benefits of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.’ (Defra: London.)
Combes Motel, P., Picard, R., and Combes, J. L. (2009). A methodology to estimate impacts of domestic policies on deforestation: compensated successful efforts for ‘avoided deforestation’ (REDD). Ecological Economics 68, 680–691.
| A methodology to estimate impacts of domestic policies on deforestation: compensated successful efforts for ‘avoided deforestation’ (REDD).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cullen, R., Fairburn, G., and Hughey, K. (1999). COPY: a new technique for evaluation of biodiversity protection projects. Pacific Conservation Biology 5, 115–123.
Cullen, R., Fairburn, G. A., and Hughey, K. F. D. (2001). Measuring the productivity of threatened species programs. Ecological Economics 39, 53–66.
| Measuring the productivity of threatened species programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cullen, R., Moran, E., and Hughey, K. F. D. (2005). Measuring the success and cost-effectiveness of New Zealand multiple species programs. Ecological Economics 53, 311–323.
| Measuring the success and cost-effectiveness of New Zealand multiple species programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dixon, J. A., and Sherman, P. B. (1991). Economics of protected areas. Ambio 20, 68–74.
Duffield, J. (1992). An economic analysis of wolf recovery in Yellowstone: park visitor attitudes and values. In ‘Wolves for Yellowstone?’ (Eds J. Varley and W. Brewster.) pp. 13-19. (National Park Service: Yellowstone National Park, CA.)
Eberle, W. D., and Hayden, F. G. (1991). Critique of contingent valuation and travel cost methods for valuing natural resources and ecosystems. Paper 13. Economics Department Faculty Publications, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
Ekstrand, E., and Loomis, J. (1998). Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish. Water Resources Research 34, 3149.
| Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Emerton, L. (1999). Balancing the opportunity costs of wildlife conservation for communities around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Evaluating Eden Series Discussion Paper No. 5. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Engeman, R., Shwiff, S. A., Constantin, B., Stahl, M., and Smith, H. T. (2002a). An economic analysis of predator removal approaches for protecting marine turtle nests at Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge. Ecological Economics 42, 469–478.
| An economic analysis of predator removal approaches for protecting marine turtle nests at Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Engeman, R., Shwiff, S. A., Constantin, B., and Cano, F. (2003). An economic assessment of the potential for predator management to benefit Puerto Rican parrots. Ecological Economics 46, 283–292.
| An economic assessment of the potential for predator management to benefit Puerto Rican parrots.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ferraro, P. J. (2002). The local cost of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 43, 261–275.
| The local cost of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ferraro, P. J., and Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4, e105.
| Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Freeman, A. M. (2003). ‘The Measurement of Environment and Resource Values.’ 2nd edn. (Resources for the Future: Washington, DC.)
Gutman, P. (2002). Putting a price tag on conservation: cost–benefit analysis of Venezuela’s national parks. Journal of Latin American Studies 34, 43–70.
| Putting a price tag on conservation: cost–benefit analysis of Venezuela’s national parks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., Kappel, C. B., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C., Bruno, J. F., Casey, K. S., Ebert, C., Fox, H. E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H. S., Madin, E. M. P., Perry, M. T., Selig, E. R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., and Watson, R. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952.
| A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXhslOmtrk%3D&md5=6d283759575b3fb6a5c779abd40cfbbeCAS |
Hanley, N., Shogren, J. F., and White, B. (2007). ‘Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice.’ 2nd edn. (Palgrave Macmillan: New York.)
Honey-Roses, J., Baylis, K., and Ramirez, I. (2011). Do our conservation programs work? A spatially explicit estimator of avoided forest loss. Conservation Biology 25, 1032–1043.
Hughey, K. F. D., Cullen, R., and Moran, E. (2003). Integrating economics into priority setting and evaluation in conservation management. Conservation Biology 17, 93–103.
| Integrating economics into priority setting and evaluation in conservation management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
James, A. N., Gaston, K. J., and Balmford, A. (1999). Balancing the earth’s accounts. Nature 401, 323–324.
| Balancing the earth’s accounts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK1MXmsFamu78%3D&md5=3d2b3055dd1619fb95ed5e020fa0c7eaCAS |
Jantke, K., and Schneider, U. A. (2009). Opportunity costs in conservation planning – of the case of European wetland species, FNU-180. Hamburg University and Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, Hamburg.
Kapos, V., Balmford, A., Aveling, R., Bubb, P., Carey, P., Entwistle, A., Hopkins, J., Mulliken, T., Safford, R., Stattersfield, A., Walpole, M., and Manica, A. (2008). Calibrating conservation: new tools for measuring success. Conservation Letters 1, 155–164.
| Calibrating conservation: new tools for measuring success.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kotchen, M. J., and Reiling, S. D. (1998). Estimating and questioning economic values for endangered species: an application and discussion. Endangered Species UPDATE 15, 77–83.
Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffaelli, D., and White, P. (2009). Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Biological Conservation 142, 3120–3127.
| Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffaelli, D., and White, P. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending. Ecological Economics 70, 1789–1796.
| Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Loomis, J. B. (1990). Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open ended contingent valuation techniques. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 78–85.
| Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open ended contingent valuation techniques.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Loomis, J. B., and Richardson, R. (2001). Economic values of the US Wilderness System Research. Evidence to date and questions for the future. International Journal of Wilderness 7, 31–34.
Loomis, J. B., and Walsh, R. G. (1997). ‘Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs.’ 2nd edn. (Venture Publishing Inc.: State College, PA.)
Mackenzie, C. A. (2012). Accruing benefit or loss from a protected area: location matters. Ecological Economics 76, 119–129.
| Accruing benefit or loss from a protected area: location matters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mackenzie, C. A., and Ahabyona, P. (2012). Elephants in the garden: financial and social costs of crop raiding. Ecological Economics 75, 72–82.
| Elephants in the garden: financial and social costs of crop raiding.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., and Benayas, J. (2007). The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139, 67–82.
| The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., and Benayas, J. (2008). Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology 22, 624–635.
| Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Naidoo, R., and Adamowicz, W. L. (2006). Modeling opportunity costs of conservation in transitional landscapes. Conservation Biology 20, 490–500.
Naidoo, R., and Ricketts, T. (2006). Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology 4, e360.
| Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., and Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 681–687.
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R. E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T. R., and Ricketts, T. H. (2008). Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 9495–9500.
| 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXovVOjsb0%3D&md5=83426549abfbeb4f7572d52c7cf5f7c4CAS |
Naughton-Treves, L., and Treves, A. (2005). Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. In ‘People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence?’. (Eds R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood and A. Rabinowitz) pp. 252–277. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)
Ninan, K. N., Jyothis, S., Babu, P., and Ramakrishnappa, V. (2007). ‘The Economics of Biodiversity Conservation: Valuation in Tropical Forest Ecosystems.’ (Earthscan: London.)
Nunes, P., and van den Bergh, J. (2001). Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics 39, 203–222.
| Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nyhus, P., Sumianto, , and Tilson, R. (2000). Crop-raiding elephants and conservation implications at Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx 34, 262–275.
Nyhus, P. J., Osofsky, S. A., Ferraro, P., Madden, F., and Fischer, H. (2005). Bearing the cost of human–wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes. In ‘People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistance’. (Eds R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood and A. Rabibowitz.) pp. 107–121. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)
Pearce, D., and Moran, D. (1994). ‘The Economic Value of Biodiversity.’ (Earthscan: London.)
Richardson, H. W. (1972). ‘Input–Output and Regional Economics.’ (John Wiley: New York.)
Rondinini, C., and Boitani, L. (2007). Systematic conservation planning and the cost of tackling conservation conflicts with large carnivores in Italy. Conservation Biology 21, 1455–1462.
| Systematic conservation planning and the cost of tackling conservation conflicts with large carnivores in Italy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rondinini, C., Wilson, K. A., Boitani, L., Grantham, H., and Possingham, H. P. (2006). Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecology Letters 9, 1136–1145.
| Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rosenberger, R., and Loomis, J. (2001). Benefit transfer of outdoor recreational use values: a technical document supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 revision). Generation of Technical Report RMRS-GTR-72. Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
Salafsky, N., and Margoluis, R. (1999). Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology 13, 830–841.
| Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schneider, U. A., Havlík, P., Schmid, E., Valin, H., Mosnier, A., Obersteiner, M., Böttcher, H., Skalský, R. D., Balkovič, J. D., Sauer, T. A., and Fritz, S. (2011). Impacts of population growth, economic development, and technical change on global food production and consumption. Agricultural Systems 104, 204–215.
| Impacts of population growth, economic development, and technical change on global food production and consumption.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shwiff, S. A., Sterner, R. T., Turman, J. W., and Foster, B. D. (2005). Ex post economic analysis of reproduction-monitoring and predator-removal variables associated with protection of the endangered California least tern. Ecological Economics 53, 277–287.
| Ex post economic analysis of reproduction-monitoring and predator-removal variables associated with protection of the endangered California least tern.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shwiff, S. A., Gebhardt, K., and Kirkpatrick, K. N. (2010). The potential economic damage of the introduction of the brown treesnake, Boiga irregularis (Reptilia: Colubridae) to the islands of Hawai’i. Pacific Science 64, 1–10.
| The potential economic damage of the introduction of the brown treesnake, Boiga irregularis (Reptilia: Colubridae) to the islands of Hawai’i.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith, V. K., Houtven, G. V., and Pattanayak, S. K. (2002). Benefit transfer via preference calibration: ‘prudential algebra’ for policy. Land Economics 78, 132–152.
| Benefit transfer via preference calibration: ‘prudential algebra’ for policy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Spiteri, A., and Nepal, S. K. (2008). Evaluating local benefits from conservation in Nepal’s Annapurna conservation area. Environmental Management 42, 391–401.
| Evaluating local benefits from conservation in Nepal’s Annapurna conservation area.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tisdell, C., and Wilson, C. (2006). Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: experiments and policy. Contemporary Economic Policy 24, 144–159.
| Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: experiments and policy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Treyz, G. I., Rickman, D. S., and Shao, G. (1991). The REMI economic-demographic forecasting and simulation model. International Regional Science Review 14, 221–253.
Wätzold, F., Drechsler, M., Armstrong, C. W., Baumgartner, S., Grimm, V., Huth, A., Perrings, C., Possingham, H. P., Shogren, J. F., Skonhoft, A., Verboom-Vasiljev, J., and Wissel, C. (2006). Ecological-economic modeling for biodiversity management: potential, pitfalls, and prospects. Conservation Biology 20, 1034–1041.
| Ecological-economic modeling for biodiversity management: potential, pitfalls, and prospects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilson, C., and Tisdell, C. (2003). Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife-based marine tourism: sea turtles and whales as case studies. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8, 49–58.
| Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife-based marine tourism: sea turtles and whales as case studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Zawacki, W. T., Marsinko, A., and Bowker, J. M. (2000). A travel cost analysis of nonconsumptive wildlife-associated recreation in the United States. Forest Science 46, 496–506.
