Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conservation Payments to Reduce Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation and Disease Risks

  • Chapter
Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes

Part of the book series: Natural Resource Management and Policy ((NRMP,volume 31))

Abstract

We investigate the challenges of using payments for environmental services (PES) to protect endangered species given habitat fragmentation in conjunction with disease risks from neighboring livestock. Using a bioeconomic model, we show how greater connectivity of habitat creates an endogenous trade-off. More connectedness both (1) increases growth of endangered species populations, while (2) simultaneously increasing the likelihood diseases will spread more quickly. We examine payments for habitat connectedness, livestock vaccination, and reduced movement of infected livestock. We find the cost-effective policy to first use subsidies to promote habitat contiguousness. Once habitat is sufficiently connected, disease risks increase to the point where disease-related subsidies become worthwhile. Highly connected habitat requires nearly all the government budget be devoted to disease prevention and control. The conservation payments result in significantly increased wildlife abundance, increased livestock health and abundance, and increased development opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    1This chapter draws largely from Horan et al. (forthcoming).

  2. 2.

    2Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

  3. 3.

    3For instance, vaccinations for foot-and-mouth disease exist but are not widely used ex ante because: (1) they only protect against clinical signs of the disease and not the disease itself, making it harder to detect an actual outbreak; (2) they must be developed for particular strains of the disease, and may be ineffective against new outbreaks; (3) they are costly to administer, particularly when risks are low; and (4) countries that vaccinate are not considered FMD-free by trading partners, and so trade sanctions could ensue (USDA-APHIS, 2002).

  4. 4.

    4Similar trade-offs may impact farmers capable of habitat provision. Farmers appreciate income from conservation payments. This conservation, however, may put their own livestock at risk, as it is also possible that wildlife could be a reservoir for other diseases that could adversely affect livestock. The presence of or the potential for disease reservoirs in wildlife could make it harder to encourage private habitat investments. Habitat provision may also increase other wildlife conflicts such as livestock predation or crop damage.

  5. 5.

    5We assume disease impacts to reservoir populations are comparatively mild. But even if they were significant, a farmer would underinvest because he or she could not capture all the social benefits in the market price.

  6. 6.

    6An alternative approach is to model explicitly the dynamics of interacting susceptible, infected, and resistant populations on multiple patches of land, with migration between patches. Environmental and economic variables are taken to be homogeneous within a patch but heterogeneous between patches (e.g., Sanchirico & Wilen, 1999, 2005). This approach permits the most ecological and economic detail, particularly when the number of patches is large, but it comes at a price paid in more computation and less transparency. If n species live in one of three subpopulations (S, I, R) on each of N patches, the bioeconomic analysis must account for economic and ecological trade-offs arising among 3 × n × N interacting populations and possibly as many control variables. The solution could be so complex as to obscure any insight. The approach we adopt is more tractable, but it comes at a cost of reduced ecological and economic detail, as an underlying assumption is that the (ecological and economic) environment is homogeneous across the landscape.

  7. 7.

    7Their model extends Hess (1996) and Gog et al. (2002) to include reservoir species. The model is also relevant for the other problems presented in Box 1. Their use of hypothetical simulation is due to the lack of data, which is common among wildlife disease problems.

  8. 8.

    8Hess (1996) begins his analysis with a simple metapopulation model that models only between patch dynamics involving uniform patches (an island model), but then moves on to consider a more complicated model that considers dynamics both within and between patches, as well as different spatial configurations. The problem of Andean deer in Chile is more like the necklace configuration examined by Hess. But, at least when modeling a single host, Hess’s results for the island and necklace models are qualitatively similar.

  9. 9.

    9Veterinary medicine can also increase the rate of livestock recovery from infection, G, but prevention of disease occurrence is the only way to avoid costs associated with the loss of endangered species. Biosecurity, under some situations, is also a preventative measure ranchers could invest in to reduce the rate of infectious contact between wild and domestic species. This usually involves separating wildlife from livestock by a physical barrier (fences) or some other means. Since livestock in close proximity to Chilean parks tend to be free ranging (Povilitis, 1998), physical separation is not straightforward unless wholesale cultural and production system changes are made – changes that would probably be untenable at least in the short run. We take these systems as given and do not consider biosecurity as a choice variable.

  10. 10.

    10The benefits of reduced human-wildlife conflicts may be largely external to an individual farmer with limited landholdings. Rather these benefits emanate from the joint habitat investment decisions by many farmers in an area.

  11. 11.

    11We assume vaccination subsidies go to ranchers, though it would make no difference to assume veterinarians were paid. Except for distributional differences, the same outcome should arise regardless of who is paid, provided that animal health providers certify herds are vaccinated in order for payments to be made. But we do note many existing payment programs actually fund local veterinarians and community members enlisted to provide animal health services (Preslar, 1999; VSF, 2006; Langa, 2001).

  12. 12.

    12These transactions costs could include rancher education on the benefits of vaccination. We do not explicitly model monitoring and enforcement problems, although they would exist in any payment program (and also in command-and-control programs). Existing programs that pay for habitat connectivity and vaccinations employ personnel for program monitoring (Gichochi, 2003; Preslar, 1999; VSF, 2006). If the associated expenses are fixed regardless of the level of payments (e.g., one worker per participating community), these costs would not affect the optimal plan. If these costs are proportional to the level of payments, they could be captured by b.

  13. 13.

    13McCallum and Dobson’s (2002) graph is qualitatively the same as ours, but some values appear to differ slightly. This could be a result of the accuracy of the numerical methods being used (we have solved the model using Mathematica 5.0; Wolfram Research Inc, 2003).

  14. 14.

    14While not presented, comparisons of bioeconomic results against McCallum and Dobson’s other scenarios b–d are qualitatively similar to scenario a. Quantitative differences do arise, however, there are fewer incentives to subsidize conservation activities when endangered species are not really in danger (scenario b and a range of scenario c), and there are greater incentives to subsidize conservation when the endangered species is in even more danger (scenario d and part of scenario c).

References

  • Alston JM, Hurd BH (1990) Some neglected social costs of government spending on farm programs. Am J Agric Econ 72:149-156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babiker HAS, Eldin EI SAZ (1987) Preliminary observations on vaccination against bovine cysticercosis in the Sudan. Vet Parasitol 24:297-300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow ND (1991) Control of endemic bovine Tb in New Zealand possum populations: Results from a simple model. J Appl Ecol 23:794-809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicknell KB, Wilen JE, Howitt RE (1999) Public policy and private incentives for livestock disease control. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 43:501-521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows R (1992) Rabies in wild dogs. Nature 359:277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows R, Hofer H, East ML (1994) Demography, extinction and intervention in a small population: The case of the Serengeti wild dogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London. Biol Sci 256:281-292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Soberon J, Salazar I, Fay JP (2005) Global mammal conservation: What must we manage? Science 309:603-607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark CW (1990) Mathematical bioeconomics. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker T, Tschirhart J (1992) Ecosystems, externalities, and economies. Environ Resour Econ 2:551-567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD (2000) Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife - Threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287:443-448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann O, Heesterbeek JAP, Metz JAJ (1990) On the definition and computation of the basic reproduction ratio R0 in models of infectious disease in heterogeneous populations. J Math Biol 28:365-382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson A (2004) Population dynamics of pathogens with multiple host species. Am Nat 164:S64-S78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich I, Becker G (1972) Market insurance, self-insurance, and self-protection. J Politi Econ 80:623-648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewing J (2005) The Mesoamerican biological corridor: A bridge across the Americas. EcoWorld Mag, 19 December. Available at http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=377. Accessed November 3, 2006.

  • Fenichel EP, Horan RD (2007) Jointly-determined thresholds and economic tradeoffs in wildlife disease management. Nat Resour Model 20:511-547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Leung B, Lodge D (2005) Risk and nonindigenous species management. Rev Agric Econ 27:475-482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaydos JK, Gildardi KVK (2004 March 2-6) Addressing disease risks when recovering species at risk. In: Hooper, TD (ed.) Proceedings of the species at risk, 2004. Pathways to recovery conference, Victoria, BC, Species at Risk 2004, pp. 1-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gichohi HW (2003) Direct payments as a mechanism for conserving important wildlife corridor links between Nairobi National Park and its wider ecosystem: The Wildlife Conservation Lease Program, Vth World Parks Congress. Sustainable Finance Stream, Durban, South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gog J, Woodroffe R, Swinton J (2002) Disease in endangered metapopulations: The importance of alternative hosts. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:671-676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gramig BM, Barnett BJ, Skees JR, Black JR (2006) Incentive compatibility in livestock disease risk management. In: Koontz SR, Hoag DL, Thilmany DD (eds.) The economics of livestock disease insurance: Concepts, issues and international case studies. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haydon DT, Laurenson MK, Sillero-Zubiri C (2002) Integrating epidemiology into population viability analysis: Managing the risk posed by rabies and canine distemper to the Ethiopian wolf. Conserv Biol 16(5):1372-1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess G (1996) Disease in metapopulation models: Implications for conservation. Ecology 77:1617-1632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heesterbeek JAP, Roberts MG (1995) Mathematical models for microparasites of wildlife. In: Grenfell BT, Dobson AP (eds.) Ecology of infectious diseases in natural populations. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickling G (2002) Dynamics of bovine tuberculosis in wild white-tailed deer in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horan RD, Wolf CA (2005) The economics of managing infectious wildlife disease. Am J Agric Econ 87:537-551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horan RD, Shogren JF, Gramig BM (2008) Wildlife conservation payments to address habitat fragmentation and disease risks. Environ Dev Econ 13:415-439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser J (2001) Conservation biology: Bold corridor project confronts reality. Science 21:2196-2199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock RA, Wambua JM, Mwanzia J, Wamwayi H, Ndungu EK, Barrett T, Kock ND, Rossiter PB (1999) Rinderpest epidemic in wild ruminants in Kenya 1993-97. Vet Rec 145(10):275-283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langa JSR (2001) Mozambican field experience - Gaza Province. In: Alders RG, Spradbrow PB (eds.) SADC Planning Workshop on Newcastle Disease Control in Village Chickens. Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, Proceedings PR103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurenson K, Sillero-Zubiri C, Thompson H, Shiferaw F, Thirgood S, Malcolm J (1998) Disease as a threat to endangered species: Ethiopian wolves, domestic dogs and canine pathogens. Anim Conserv 1(4):273-280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurenson MK, Shiferaw F, Sillero-Zubiri C (1997) Disease in domestic dogs and the Ethiopian wolf: The current situation. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Macdonald DW (eds.) The Ethiopian wolf: Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G (2002) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: Bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc Lond 269:2407-2413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomolog Soc Am 15:237-240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magin C (1996) Hirola recovery plan. Species Survival Commission, The World Conservation Union (IUCN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marino J, Sillero-Zubiri C, Macdonald DW (2006) Trends, dynamics and resilience of an Ethiopian wolf population. Anim Conserv 9(1): 49-58.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallum H, Dobson A (1995) Detecting disease and parasite threats to endangered species and ecosystems. TREE 10(5):190-194.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallum H, Dobson A (2002) Disease, habitat fragmentation and conservation. Proc R Soc Lond 269:2041-2049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil DG (2006) In war on bird flu, U.N. looks to recruit killer army. New York Times, Late Ed. (1):4(January 29).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2002) Taenia hydatigena. Available at http://www.michigan gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12150_12220-27283-,00.html. Accessed January 5, 2006.

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • O.I.E. (2004) Rinderpest in Kenya. World Anim Health Organ Dis Inf 17:282-284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkhurst G, Shogren J (2006) Smart subsidies for conservation. Working paper, University of Wyoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry B, Pratt AN, Stones K, Stevens C (2005) An appropriate level of risk: Balancing the need for safe livestock products with fair market access. Narobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute and UN-FAO, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, Working Paper No. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson MJ, Grant WE, Davis DS (1991) Bison-brucellosis management: Simulation of alternative strategies. J Wildl Manag 55:205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Povilitis A (1983) The huemul in Chile: National symbol in jeopardy? Oryx 17:34-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Povilitis A (1998) Characteristics and conservation of a fragmented population of huemul Hippocamelus bisulcus in central Chile. Biol Conserv 86:97-104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preslar DB (1999) Lessening the impact of animal disease on developing country agriculture: A proposed program using developed country technologies' in sustainable agriculture solutions. Action Report 1999. Novello Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pybus MJ (1990) Survey of hepatic and pulmonary helminths of wild cervids in Alberta, Canada. J Wildl Dis 26:453-459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Network for Environment and Development (ReNED) (2005) Ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries: Proceedings and conclusions of the ReNED Conference, Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts MG, Heesterbeek JAP (2003) A new method for estimating the effort required to control an infectious disease. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1359-1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchirico J, Wilen JE (1999) Bioeconomics of spatial exploitation in a patchy environment. J Environ Econ Manag 37(2):129-150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchirico JN, Wilen JE (2005) Optimal spatial management of renewable resources: Matching policy scope to ecosystem scale. J Environ Econ Manag 50:23-46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott GR (1981) Rinderpest. In: Davis JW, Karstad LH, Trainer DO (eds.) Infectious diseases of wild animals, 2nd ed. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shogren JF, Crocker T (1991) Risk, self-protection, and ex ante economic value. J Environ Econ Manag 20:1-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sillero-Zubiri C, King AA, Macdonald DW (1996) Rabies and mortality in Ethiopian wolves (Canis simensis). J Wildl Dis 32:80-86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonetti JA (1995) Wildlife conservation outside parks is a disease-mediated task. Conserv Biol 9:454-456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith GC, Cheeseman CL (2002) A mathematical model for the control of disease in wildlife populations: Culling, vaccination and fertility control. Ecol Model 150:45-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Fleuck JM, Fleuck WT (1995) Threats to the huemul in the southern Andean Nothofagus forest. In: Bissonette JA, Krausman PR (eds.) Integrating people and wildlife for a sustainable future. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinage CA (1962) Rinderpest and faunal distribution patterns. Afr Wildl 16:55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Texera WA (1974) Algunos aspectos de la biologýá del huemel (Hippocamelus bisulcus) an cautividad. Ann Inst Patagon, Chile, 155-188.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDAAPHIS) (2002) Foot-and-mouth disease vaccine. Factsheet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vétérinaires sans Frontiers (VSF) (2006) Community based animal health program. Available at http://www.vsf-belgium.org/dzf/view/en/395. Accessed November 3, 2006.

  • Wikerhauser T, Zukovic M, Dzakula N (1971) Taenia saginata and T. hydatigena: Intramuscular vaccination of calves with oncospheres. Exp Parasit 30:36-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram Research Inc. (2003) Mathematica. Version 5.0, Champaign, IL.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Richard D. Horan

  2. Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA

    Jason F. Shogren

  3. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Benjamin M. Gramig

Authors
  1. Richard D. Horan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason F. Shogren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin M. Gramig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural and Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, Rome, Italy

    Leslie Lipper  & Takumi Sakuyama  & 

  2. School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, Glen, Osmond

    Randy Stringer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 FAO

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Horan, R.D., Shogren, J.F., Gramig, B.M. (2009). Conservation Payments to Reduce Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation and Disease Risks. In: Lipper, L., Sakuyama, T., Stringer, R., Zilberman, D. (eds) Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 31. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72971-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation