Skip to main content

Table 3 The effectiveness scores, along with the total costs for SRDP spend on the habitat (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

Habitat 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 habitat interventions
Hedgerows 28–80 £44,133,392 ($69,289,425) £50,403,35 ($79,133,262) £630,042–£1,800,120 ($989,166–$2,826,188) Much of the funding allocated for this habitat has been spent on the creation of new hedges and not the management of existing ones Future schemes may be more effective in the future if the management of existing hedgerows is included along with planting new ones.
There also needs to be better geographical targeting of where new hedges are planted, so that they have the most biodiversity benefit
Arable fields 48.5 – 95 £10,556,875 ($16,574,293) £12,515,998 ($19,650,116) £131,747–£258,062 ($206,843–$405,157) Schemes have had positive impacts for this habitat but there are still lots of areas where intensification is continuing
The ‘Wild bird seed mix’ options in particular have been important for the habitat but there hasn’t been enough uptake of the option
The scheme therefore needs to be continued in order for the benefits to be secured
As with hedgerow habitats, here also needs to be better geographical targeting of the schemes so that they have the most biodiversity benefit in addition to sufficient advice and aftercare
Upland heath and moorland NA £29,220,178 ($45,875679) £33,817,420 ($53,093,349) NA Moorland grazing options have been particularly influential for this habitat but the availability of places to store stock is a barrier to some landowners Advice and geographical targeting is needed in the future management of this habitat as well as adequate monitoring of designated sites
Effectiveness may be improved by enabling fewer specific options and focusing on the delivery of management plans
Native woodland NA £110,143,506 ($172,925,304) £124,706,509 ($195,789,219) NA The payment rates for this habitat have increased which has attracted people to native woodland planting
However, further checks and aftercare is needed to ensure that this planting is maintained and biodiversity benefits are gained
Effectiveness could be improved by targeting payments, enabling greater deer management at the landscape level, ensuring that disease resistant planting stock is available
Wetlands 53 £19,880,886 ($31,212,991) £22,494,444 ($35,316,277) £424,423 ($666,344) Many of the RP options are important for wetlands but uptake has been low in some cases enhancing payments and training available to landowners may improve this Improvements in effectiveness could be made by training landowners so that skills are there to continue management
Targeting, advice, support and monitoring will also enhance effectiveness of schemes
  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 habitat is also provided as well as recommendations for improving the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of habitat 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