Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 385–394 | Cite as

Modeling biodiversity benefits and external costs from a keystone predator reintroduction policy

  • Yohan Lee
  • Jane L. Harrison
  • Cristina Eisenberg
  • Byungdoo LeeEmail author


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.


Wolf Economics Biodiversity Ecological economics Opportunity cost Conservation policy Endangered species 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Bergstrom BJ, Vignieri S, et al. (2009) The Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf is not yet recovered. Bioscience 59: 991–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2010) Recovering riparian plant communities with wolves in Northern Yellowstone, USA. Restoration Ecology 18: 380–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byron E (2010) With wolves entrenched, debate has shifted. Billings Gazette. [accessed on 2010-5-21].
  6. Chambers CM, Whitehead JC (2003) A contingent valuation estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics 26:249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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).Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Dyar JA, Wagner J (2003) Uncertainty and species recovery program design. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 505–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenberg C (2010) The Wolf’s Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. 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].Google Scholar
  12. Estes JA, Palmisano JF (1974) Sea otters: their role in structuring nearshore communities. Science 185: 1058–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 24:852–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Hammil J (2003) Wolf recovery in the Upper Midwest: Where do we go from here? International Wolf 13(4): 4–7.Google Scholar
  16. Hanley N, Shogren JF, White B (2007) Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan, New York. pp 82–130.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18: 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Montgomery CA, Pollak RA, Freemark K, et al. (1999) Pricing Biodiversity. Journal of Environmental and Economic Management 38: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paine RT (1969) A note on trophic complexity and species diversity. The American Naturalist 103: 91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paine RT (1980) Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. Journal of Animal Ecology 49: 667–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated metaanalysis. Ecological Economics 68: 1535–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ripple WJ, Beschta RL (2004) Wolves and the ecology of fear: Can predation risk structure ecosystems? BioScience 54: 755–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaffer ML (1983) Minimal population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31: 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith DW, Petersen RO, Houston DB (2004) Yellowstone after Wolves. Bioscience 53: 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soulé ME, Estes JA, Miller B, Honnold DA (2005) Strongly interacting species: conservation policy, management, and ethics. BioScience 55: 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Soulé ME, Estes JA, Berger J, Martinez Del Rio C (2003) Ecological effectiveness: Conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology 17: 1238–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Soulé ME, ed. (1987) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) Northern Rocky Mountain States Confirmed Wolf Depredation. [accessed on 2010-3-12].
  33. Vatn A, Bromley DW (1995) Choices without Prices without Apologies. Handbook of Environmental Economics. Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts. pp 3–21.Google Scholar
  34. White CA, Feller MC, Bayley S (2003) Predation risk and the functional response of elk-aspen herbivory. Forest Ecology and Management 181: 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wisconsin Department of National Resources (2007) [accessed on 2010-3-12].

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yohan Lee
    • 1
  • Jane L. Harrison
    • 2
  • Cristina Eisenberg
    • 1
  • Byungdoo Lee
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Forest Ecosystem and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Engineering, Resources, and ManagementOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Korea Forest Research InstituteSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations