Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 175–188 | Cite as

The Cattle-Wolf Dilemma: Interactions among Three Protected Species

Article
  • 405 Downloads

Abstract

This paper utilizes economic valuation to offer a new perspective on livestock rancher—predator conflicts. While most studies have considered losses to the species directly involved, i.e., cattle and wolves (Canis lupus), we take into account other species that are threatened by efforts to protect livestock. In this case, vultures (Gyps fulvus) and gazelles (Gazella gazella), both endangered species, are either poisoned (vultures) or suffer from habitat fragmentation (gazelles) in the Upper Galilee region in Israel. Since the ecological value of these species is unobserved in the marketplace, we use the contingent valuation method to quantify the loss incurred from damage to protected species: wolves, vultures and gazelles. This method uses surveys of a representative sample from the population to generate estimates for use and non-use values of animals and other components of the natural environment. These value estimates are then used to compare between different measures that address the problem: either protect cattle herds by building anti-wolf fences and taking other protective measures, or compensating ranchers for their losses from wolf depredations. Our analysis suggests that while it is optimal from the ranchers’ point of view to invest in protective measures such as fences, dogs and guards against wolves, it is not in society’s best interest. A cost-benefit analysis taking into account all the ecological values finds a higher net benefit to society from a relatively small amount of protection, coupled with compensation to the farmers for depredations.

Keywords

Cost benefit analysis Contingent-valuation method Wildlife management Israel 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Nature Protection Agency for their financial support for this research. Research assistance was provided by Omer Yaffe, Emil Shienfeld, Mahmud Hatib, and Boaz Becker.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agarwala M, Kumar S, Treves A, Naughton-Treves L (2010) Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biol Conserv 143(12):2945–2955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreopoulos D, Damigos D, Comiti F, Fischer C (2015) Estimating the non-market benefits of climate change adaptation of river ecosystem services: a choice experiment application in the Aoos basin, Greece. Environ Sci Policy 45:92–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58:4601–4614Google Scholar
  4. Bandara R, Tisdell C (2003) Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: empirical evidence. Biol Conserv 110(3):327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann. WM, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourne J (1994) Protecting Livestock with Guard Donkeys. Agdex 684-18:3, http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9396 Google Scholar
  7. Becker N, Choresh Y, Bahat O, Inbar M (2010) Cost benefit analysis of conservation efforts to preserve an endangered species: the Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Israel. J Bioecon 12(1):55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Behdarvand N, Kaboli M, Ahmadi M, Nourani E, Mahini AS, Aghbolaghi MA (2014) Spatial risk model and mitigation implications for wolf–human conflict in a highly modified agro-ecosystem in western Iran. Biol Conserv 177:156–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berrens RP, Brookshire D, Ganderton P, McKee M (1998) Exploring nonmarket values for the social impacts of environmental policy change. Resour Energy Econ 20(2):117–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breck SW, Kluever BM, Panasci M, Oakleaf J, Johnson T, Ballard W, Howery L, Bergman DL (2011) Domestic calf mortality and producer detection rates in the Mexican wolf recovery area: implications for livestock management and carnivore compensation schemes. Biol Conserv 144(2):930–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broberg T, Brännlund R (2008) On the value of large predators in Sweden: a regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. J Environ Manage 88(4):1066–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bulte E, Rondeau D (2007) Compensation for wildlife damages: habitat conversion, species preservation and local welfare. J Environ Econ Manage 54(3):311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manage 27(3):218–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Hanemann M, Kopp RJ, Presser S, Ruud PA (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25(3):257–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chambers CM, Whitehead JC (2003) A contingent valuation estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota. Environ Resour Econ 26:249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coppinger L, Coppinger R (1993) Two different jobs, two different dogs: dogs for herding and for guarding livestock. Ch. 13. In: Grandin T, ed. Livestock handling and transport. CAB International, Oxon, U.K.Google Scholar
  17. Desvousges W, Mathews K, Train K (2015) An adding-up test on contingent valuations of river and lake quality. Land Econ 91(3):556–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. J Econ Perspect 8(4):45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ericsson G, Bostedt G, Kindberg J (2008) Wolves as a symbol of people’s willingness to pay for large carnivore conservation. Soc Nat Resour 21(4):294–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freund Avraham, Y (2014) Living with wolves. Maariv, 18 October (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
  21. Fritts SH, Bangs EE, Gore JF (1994) The relationship of wolf recovery to habitat conservation and biodiversity in the northwestern U.S. Landsc Urban Plan 28:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis, 5 edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  23. Gutman, M, Gefen, A & Mor, S (1999), Preventing wolf depredation damages in livestock, Report submitted to the Chief Scientist in the Ministry of Agriculture, Israel (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  24. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Halstead JM, Lindsay BE, Brown CM (1991) Use of the tobit model in contingent valuation: experimental evidence from the pemigewasset wilderness area. J Environ Manage 33(1):79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harder DS, Labao R, Santos, FI (2006) Saving the Philippine Eagle: how much would it cost and are Filipinos willing to pay for it? Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of Endangered Species in Four Asian Countries, 77–119Google Scholar
  27. Hatzofe, O (2012) Summary of Vulture Headcount 2012, Nature and Parks Authority (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  28. Hobbs NT, Galvin KA, Stokes CJ, Lackett JM, Ash AJ, Boone RB, Reid RS, Thornton PK (2008) Fragmentation of rangelands: implications for humans, animals, and landscapes. Glob Environ Chang 18:776–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Israeli Cattle Breeders’ Association (2015), Price Information Update.Google Scholar
  30. Jones BA, Berrens RP, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Carlson DE, Ripberger JT, Carlson N (2016) Valuation in the anthropocene: exploring options for alternative operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. Water Resour Econ 14:13–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaplan, D (2010) Summary of Gazelle Headcount in the Galilee, Nature and Parks Authority (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  32. Karanth KK, Gopalaswamy AM, Prasad PK, Dasgupta S (2013) Patterns of human–wildlife conflicts and compensation: insights from Western Ghats protected areas. Biol Conserv 166:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karanth KK, Naughton-Treves L, DeFries R, Gopalaswamy AM (2013) Living with wildlife and mitigating conflicts around three Indian protected areas. Environ Manage 52(6):1320–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kroeger T, Manalo P (2006) A review of the economic benefits of species and habitat conservation. Conservation Economics Program, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, Report prepared for the Doris Duke Charitable FoundationGoogle Scholar
  35. Lienhoop N, Bartkowski B, Hansjürgens B (2015) Informing biodiversity policy: the role of economic valuation, deliberative institutions and deliberative monetary valuation. Environ Sci Policy 54:522–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lockwood M, Loomis J, De Lacy T (1994) The relative unimportance of a nonmarket willingness to pay for timber harvesting. Ecol Econ 9(2):145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Madariaga B, McConnell KE (1987) Exploring existence value. Water Resour Res 23(5):936–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mann S, Wüstemann H (2008) Multifunctionality and a new focus on externalities. J Socio-Econ 37(1):293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mattson DJ, Byrd KL, Rutherford MB, Brown SR, Clark TW (2006) Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: mapping contending perspectives. Environ Sci Policy 9(4):392–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Muhly TB, Musiani M (2009) Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching economy in the Northwestern US. Ecol Econ 68(8):2439–2450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Naughton-Treves L, Grossberg R, Treves A (2003) Paying for tolerance: the impact of depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolves. Conserv Biol 17:1500–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ragkos A, Theodoridis A (2016) Valuation of environmental and social functions of the multifunctional Cypriot agriculture. Land Use Policy 54:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramler JP, Hebblewhite M, Kellenberg D, Sime C (2014) Crying Wolf? A spatial analysis of wolf location and depredations on calf weight. Am J Agric Econ 96(3):631–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reichmann, A (2002) Wolves of the Galilee: Biology, Ecology and Demography, Nature and Parks Authority (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  45. Reichmann, A (2007) Wolves in Northern Israel – Monitoring and Interaction 2003-2006, Nature and Parks Authority (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  46. Reichmann, A (2012) Predators in Northern Israel, Nature and Parks Authority (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  47. Reichmann A, Saltz D (2005) The Golan wolves: the dynamics, behavioral ecology, and management of an endangered pest. Isr J Zool 51(2):87–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Remoundou K, Koundouri P, Kontogianni A, Nunes PA, Skourtos M (2009) Valuation of natural marine ecosystems: an economic perspective. Environ Sci Policy 12(7):1040–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sagoff M (1996) On the value of endangered and other species. Environ Manage 20(6):897–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schaefer JM, Brown MT (1992) Designing and protecting river corridors for wildlife. Rivers 3:14–26Google Scholar
  51. Shkedy, Y & Sadot, E (2000). Ecological Corridors – a Practical Conservation Tool. Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority. Science Department Publication, pp 43.Google Scholar
  52. Tisdell C, Wilson C, Nantha HS (2005) Policies for saving a rare Australian glider: economics and ecology. Biol Conserv 123(2):237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Treves A, Wallace RB, Naughton-Treves L, Morales A (2006) Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts: a review. Hum Dimens Wildl 11(6):383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trujillo JC, Carrillo B, Charris CA, Velilla RA (2016) Coral reefs under threat in a Caribbean marine protected area: assessing divers’ willingness to pay toward conservation. Marine Policy 68:146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van der Heide CM, van den Bergh JC, van Ierland EC, Nunes PA (2008) Economic valuation of habitat defragmentation: a study of the Veluwe, the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 67(2):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Veronesi M, Alberini A, Cooper JC (2011) Implications of bid design and willingness-to-pay distribution for starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Environ Resour Econ 49(2):199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wade DA (1982) The use of fences for predator damage control. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf 10:24–33Google Scholar
  58. Zabel A, Holm-Müller K (2008) Conservation performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conserv Biol 22(2):247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Management, Tel-Hai CollegeUpper GalileeIsrael

Personalised recommendations