Date: 27 May 2012
Modeling biodiversity benefits and external costs from a keystone predator reintroduction policy
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In this paper, an economic model was constructed to determine the optimal wolf population and distribution across the Northern Rocky Mountains. Both ecological and economic concepts were incorporated in an implicitly spatial social welfare maximization problem. This interdisciplinary model relies on multiple data sources, including current wolf population and distribution information, opportunity cost to local landowners, and contingent valuation studies to determine willingness-to-pay for wolves. Economic models tend to externalize ecological concerns and ecological models often omit the complex human dimensions of conservation policy. Accordingly, this model can serve as a guide for integrating best practices from both fields. The model presented here is sufficiently general to apply to wolves in other ecosystems and to other highly interacting species such as beavers and bison. The Northern Rocky Mountain wolf was used as an example of how this economic model works, but this model can be applied far more broadly.
Bangs EE, Fritts SH, Fontaine JA, et al. (1998) Status of gray wolf restoration in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 785–798.
Bergstrom BJ, Vignieri S, et al. (2009) The Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf is not yet recovered. Bioscience 59: 991–999.CrossRef
Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2010) Recovering riparian plant communities with wolves in Northern Yellowstone, USA. Restoration Ecology 18: 380–389.CrossRef
Bulte E, Rondeau D (2007) Compensation for wildlife damages: Habitat conversion, species preservation and local welfare. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54: 311–322.CrossRef
Byron E (2010) With wolves entrenched, debate has shifted. Billings Gazette. http://www.billingsgazette.com/news/stateandregional/montana/article_53ba4dee-f82d-11de-8345-001cc4c03286.html [accessed on 2010-5-21].
Chambers CM, Whitehead JC (2003) A contingent valuation estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics 26:249–267.CrossRef
Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar (2010) Nos. CV 09-77-M-DWM, CV 09-82-M-DWM, 2010 WL 3084194 (D. Mont. Aug. 5, 2010).
Duffield JW, Neher CJ (1996) Economics of wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Transactions of the 61st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. pp 285–292.
Dyar JA, Wagner J (2003) Uncertainty and species recovery program design. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 505–522.CrossRef
Eisenberg C (2010) The Wolf’s Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Eisenberg C, Johnson KN, Salwasser H, Franklin JF (2010) The role of wolves in restoring complexity to forest ecosystems in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry [In press].
Estes JA, Palmisano JF (1974) Sea otters: their role in structuring nearshore communities. Science 185: 1058–1060.CrossRef
Estes JA, Tinker MT, Bodkin JL (2010) Using ecological function to develop recovery criteria for depleted species: sea otters and kelp forests in the Aleutian archipelago. Conservation Biology 24:852–860CrossRef
Fritts SH, Paul WJ, Mech LD, Scott DP (1992) Trends and Management of Wolf-Livestock Conflicts in Minnesota, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 181, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 1992.
Hammil J (2003) Wolf recovery in the Upper Midwest: Where do we go from here? International Wolf 13(4): 4–7.
Hanley N, Shogren JF, White B (2007) Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan, New York. pp 82–130.
Hebblewhite M, White CA, Nietvelt CG, Hebblewhite M, White CA, Nietvelt CG, McKenzie JA, Hurd TE, Fryxell Jm, Bayley SE, Paquet PC (2005) Human activity mediates a trophic cascade caused by wolves. Ecology 86: 2135–2144.CrossRef
Kolstad CD, Ulen TS, Johnson GV (1990) Ex post liability for harm vs. ex ante safety regulation: subsitutes or complements? The American Economic Review 80(4): 888–901.
Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18: 197–206.CrossRef
Montgomery CA, Pollak RA, Freemark K, et al. (1999) Pricing Biodiversity. Journal of Environmental and Economic Management 38: 1–19.CrossRef
Paine RT (1969) A note on trophic complexity and species diversity. The American Naturalist 103: 91–93.CrossRef
Paine RT (1980) Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. Journal of Animal Ecology 49: 667–685.CrossRef
Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated metaanalysis. Ecological Economics 68: 1535–1548.CrossRef
Ripple WJ, Beschta RL (2004) Wolves and the ecology of fear: Can predation risk structure ecosystems? BioScience 54: 755–766.CrossRef
Schmitz OJ, Hamback RA, Beckerman AP (2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. The American Naturalist 155: 141–153.CrossRef
Shaffer ML (1983) Minimal population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31: 131–134.CrossRef
Smith DW, Petersen RO, Houston DB (2004) Yellowstone after Wolves. Bioscience 53: 330–340.CrossRef
Soulé ME, Estes JA, Miller B, Honnold DA (2005) Strongly interacting species: conservation policy, management, and ethics. BioScience 55: 168–176.CrossRef
Soulé ME, Estes JA, Berger J, Martinez Del Rio C (2003) Ecological effectiveness: Conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology 17: 1238–1250.CrossRef
Soulé ME, ed. (1987) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Shogren JF, Tschirhart J, Anderson T, Ando AW, Beissinger SR, Brookshire D, Brown JR. GM, Coursey D, Innes R, Meyer SM, Polasky S (1999) Why economics matters for endangered species protection. Conservation Biology 13: 1257–1261.CrossRef
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) Northern Rocky Mountain States Confirmed Wolf Depredation. www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf [accessed on 2010-3-12].
Vatn A, Bromley DW (1995) Choices without Prices without Apologies. Handbook of Environmental Economics. Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts. pp 3–21.
White CA, Feller MC, Bayley S (2003) Predation risk and the functional response of elk-aspen herbivory. Forest Ecology and Management 181: 77–97.CrossRef
Wisconsin Department of National Resources (2007) http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/ [accessed on 2010-3-12].
- Modeling biodiversity benefits and external costs from a keystone predator reintroduction policy
Journal of Mountain Science
Volume 9, Issue 3 , pp 385-394
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- SP Science Press
- Additional Links
- Ecological economics
- Opportunity cost
- Conservation policy
- Endangered species
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Forest Ecosystem and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA
- 2. Department of Forest Engineering, Resources, and Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA
- 3. Korea Forest Research Institute, Hoegiro 57, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-712, South Korea