Skip to main content

Table 2 The effectiveness scores, along with the total costs for SRDP spend on the species (calculated using a social discount rate of 0 and 3.5 %), and the present value (PV) cost-effectiveness ratio (calculated using a social discount rate of 3.5 %) are presented

From: Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes

Species Effectiveness (percentage range given) PV cost (d = 0) PV cost (d = 3.5) PV cost-effectiveness ratio (d = 3.5) Qualitative information associated with effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes Recommendations for improving effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of species interventions
Black grousea 0–72 £8,068,903 ($12,668,178) £9,129,648 ($14,333,547) £126,801–£4,564,824 ($199,078–$7,166,774) Funding has often been spent in areas where populations are too low for the work to be beneficial
Weather and alternative neighbouring land-uses can have a large impact on breeding success
More accurate geographical targeting needs to take place in order for spending to be more effective
Capercaillieb 0–30 £3,850,356 ($6,045,059) £4,356,528 ($6,839,749) £145,218 ($227,992) Deer fence removal and predator control has been beneficial for capercaillie
However, weather can directly impact on breeding success
Geographical targeting and advice for landowners could improve effectiveness
Hen harrier 40 £424,506 ($666,474) £537,891 ($844,489) £13,447 ($21,111) Increases in hen harrier populations have been recorded at some sites but this effect has not been seen throughout Scotland A balanced wildlife management strategy that considers the needs of grouse sporting interests and the conditions needed for successful Hen Harrier populations has been suggested to improve the conservation status of the species
Sea eagle 75–100 £314,499 ($493,763) £351,210 ($551,399) £3,512–£4,683 ($5,514–$7,352) Natural Care schemes have enabled conflict reduction via positive management of livestock for both sea eagle populations Broader habitat improvement will be needed in the future in line with conflict reduction schemes
Corncrake 27.5–79 £9,300,940 ($14,602,476) £10,603,621 ($16,647,685) £134,223–£385,586 ($210,730–$605,370) Many options are specific to corncrakes as they require very specific conservation management
This has enabled numbers to increase or be maintained in certain areas, although range expansion has been limited
There is a need to ensure continued targeting, more advisory support and better collaboration with neighbouring land owners
Red squirrel and grey squirrel 90 £3,573,460 ($5,610,332) £4,043,230 ($6,347,871) £44,925 ($70,532) There has been good uptake of the RP scheme and a coordinated programme of grey squirrel control. Project involvement has enabled interventions to be effective Effectiveness may be improved through long term monitoring of the population levels to establish the minimum amount of control needed to achieve the conservation objectives
Great crested newt NA NA NA NA Cost-effectiveness has not been calculated for great crested Newt as funding from SRDP sources has not been used for this species
SRDP is not considered useful as it does not contribute to pond creation
Future SRDP options will need to include an option for ‘pond creation’ for the funding to be considered beneficial for this species
Marsh fritillary butterfly NA NA NA NA Cost effectiveness has not been calculated for this species as SRDP expenditure information specific to this species was not available
SRDP funding has been successful in delivering for this species as funding rates have been suitable and farmers have been keen to take up the schemes
Effectiveness is difficult to determine as no monitoring has taken place as part of the SRDP
Site-specific advice is particularly important for the effectiveness of the schemes for this species and needs to continue. More monitoring is needed in order to improve future management recommendations
Slender Scotch Burnet moth NA NA NA NA As above—species have very similar requirements in terms of funding and management As above—species have very similar requirements in terms of funding and management
Hazel gloves fungus 21 £69,000 ($108,330) £79,661 ($125,068) £3,793 ($5,955) Leader (SRDP) funding has been especially beneficial for raising awareness of the Hazel Gloves using conservation advice Future SRDP options will need to have more funding options targeted at Atlantic hazel woodlands to be considered beneficial for this species
Rhododendron ponticum NA £2,363,186 ($3,710,202) £2,673,852 ($4,197,948) NA Cost effectiveness has not been calculated for this species as the participant was unable to give a response regarding the extent to which objectives have been met so far
The grant rates were considered appropriate for this species but the application process was thought to be discouraging landowners from applying
Effectiveness of the management can often be hindered by reinvasion of rhododendron from neighbouring areas. Cost-effectiveness of this scheme could therefore be improved if the SRDP schemes were adapted to encourage collaborative working
Water vole and American Mink NA NA NA NA Cost effectiveness has not been calculated for this species as SRDP funding has not been used for management Mink control requires management on a large scale and current SRDP funding is aimed at individuals. Therefore, future funding for improving water vole conservation status needs to be aimed at mink control at a large scale, incorporating more than one landowner in order to be effective
  1. Costs were compounded up to the end date of the SRDP spend (2015), hence costs calculated using higher discount rates are higher than those calculated using zero discount rates. Costs are presented in British Pounds and US Dollars (in brackets) for comparison (exchange rates correct at time of writing). A summary of the qualitative information associated with each species is also provided as well as recommendations for improving the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of species interventions. Objectives on which effectiveness scores are based can be found in supplementary information A
  2. PV present value, d discount rate, SRDP Scottish Rural Development Programme, SAF Species Action Framework, RP rural priorities, Cost effectiveness cost per unit of effectiveness
  3. aFor this species, four complete answers were given regarding the extent to which objectives have been met. One of these answers was omitted from the cost-effectiveness analysis as the participant gave a score of 0 % effectiveness for all objectives and an effectiveness score could not be generated. The effectiveness score of zero is however still presented in the second column
  4. bFor this species, three complete answers were given regarding the extent to which objectives have been met, however, two of these participants gave a score of 0 % effectiveness for all objectives and therefore a cost-effectiveness score could not be generated for these participants. The cost-effectiveness figure shown is therefore based on one participant only and should be considered as an upper estimate