Does proactive biodiversity conservation save costs?
- 601 Downloads
Ecologists usually argue for a proactive approach to species conservation—it should start before a species is endangered and under substantial risk of extinction. In reality, however, conservation often only starts when species populations are already in a critical state. This may be the result of a policy process in which those actors who see only little or no benefits from conserving species try to delay conservation as long as possible to avoid its cost. A frequent consequence is that populations decline to critical levels so that once conservation policies set in due to legal obligations, political pressure or any other reason, additional conservation measures are required to re-establish the populations. We show that the costs associated with this policy process may be higher than those of a proactive policy. This is somewhat surprising because the costs of maintaining populations at a level at which they are not endangered may occur over a longer period. However, the costs of bringing species populations back to those levels may be so high that they outweigh the costs of the proactive approach. We develop simple cost functions that capture the main economic and ecological parameters relevant to our argument and apply them for an assessment of the costs of common hamster (Cricetus cricetus) conservation in the region of Mannheim, Germany. We find that a proactive approach would have saved between €17.2 and €36.4 mn compared to the existing policy where conservation was delayed until legal requirements forced local policy makers to implement a comprehensive hamster protection programme.
KeywordsCommon hamster Conservation management Conservation costs Cost assessment Proactive conservation
Valuable comments from an anonymous referee and Frank Krysiak and Stefan Baumgärtner on an earlier version of this paper are gratefully acknowledged.
- EC (2006) Nature and biodiversity cases: ruling of the European court of justice. Office for official publications of the European Communities, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
- FN B (2005) Warum Naturschutz: fünf Gründe die Viele überraschen dürften. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Heal G (2007) Discounting: a review of the basic economics. The University of Chicago Law Review 74:59–77Google Scholar
- MA (2005) Millenium ecosystem assesment: Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Technical Report, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
- Martín-López M, Montes C, Ramírez L, Benayas J (2009) What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biol Conserv 142:1370–1380Google Scholar
- MEDAD (2005) Plan d’action pour le Hamster commun (Cricetus cricetus) en Alsace: Tome 1 2007–2011. Ministère de l’écologie du développement et de l’aménagement durables. http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Hamster_tomeI.pdf
- Menkhorst PW, Loyn RH, Brown PB (1990) Management of the Orange-bellied Parrot. In: Clark TW, Seebeck JH (eds) Management and conservation of small populations. Chicago Zoological Society, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 239–251Google Scholar
- Naidoo R, Adamowicz WL (2006) Economic benefits of biodiversity exceed costs of conservation at an African rainforest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:16712–16716Google Scholar
- Nechay G (2000) Status of hamsters: Cricetus cricetus, Cricetus migratorius, Mesocricetus Newtoni and other hamster species in Europe. Nature and Environment Series 106, Council of Europe Publishing, EuropeGoogle Scholar
- Ruzic A (1977) Study of the population dynamics of common hamster (Cricetus cricetus L.) in Vojvodina. Plant Protection (Beograd) 28:289–300Google Scholar
- SM (2002a) Beschlussvornahme 312/2002. Mannheim city council decision document. Mannheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- SM (2002b) Beschlussvorlage Stadt Mannheim 125/2002. Mannheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Smales I, Brown PB, Menkhorst PW, Holdsworth M, Holz P (2007) Contribution of captive management of orange-bellied parrots to the recovery programme for the species in Australia. International Zoo Yearbook 37:171–178Google Scholar
- Soulé ME (ed) (1990) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- SZ (2007) Die Baustopper. Sueddeutsche Zeitung. München, Germany 19 OctoberGoogle Scholar
- Wätzold F, Drechsler M, Armstrong CW, Baumgärtner S, Grimm V, Huth A, Perrings C, Possingham HP, Shogren JF, Skonhoft A, Verboom-Vasiljev J, Wissel C (2006) Ecological-economic modeling for biodiversity management: potential, pitfalls, prospects. Conserv Biol 20:1034–1041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weinhold U, Kayser A (2006) Der Feldhamster. Die neue Brehm-Bücherei, Hohenwarsleben, GermanyGoogle Scholar