Academic literature on the topic 'Wildlife conservation Economic aspects Econometric models'

AbstractStudies aiming at valuing cultural and natural heritage projects are often focussed on one or only a few sites, whereas planning decisions concerning the allocation of public funds to heritage conservation deal with classes of heritage rather than single sites. In addition, such planning decisions are almost always concerned with non-monetary values that need to be incorporated into assessment procedures if the total value of alternative strategies is to be estimated. In this paper, we put forward and estimate models to address both of these issues within a choice-modelling framework. The method is developed in the context of conservation of a particular class of cultural heritage, namely major historic buildings in a city or country. We report results from a discrete choice experiment to assess public preferences in which the choices are alternative conservation programs and the attributes are dimensions of the programs’ cultural and economic value. The model is estimated from survey data using several flexible econometric specifications. We show that the methods developed can be used to obtain robust estimates of the economic value of this category of buildings. We also find a significant contribution of all aspects of cultural value to the formation of conservation preferences and the public’s willingness to pay.

AbstractOne of the most difficult situations for conservation is where state capacity to regulate is weak, major corporate organizations are absent, and the population does not have a strong culture of wildlife conservation. All these apply to the hugely popular urban Indonesian pastime of keeping wild songbirds, thought to be responsible for rolling local extinctions of several native species. In such situations the introduction of a voluntary, market-based approach could interact with regulation to create new and more effective approaches to reducing the negative conservation impacts of the associated trade. Here we assess the potential of such an approach through an in-depth analysis of the socio-economic and cultural aspects of bird keeping. We project that overall the pastime contributes USD 78.8 million to the economies of the six cities surveyed, supporting a range of associated small-scale rural and urban livelihoods relating to the production of cages and collection of live bird food. Finally, we describe five general bird-breeding models with the capacity to scale up the production of captive-bred birds that may substitute for wild-caught conspecifics. Based on this information we argue that a market-based policy instrument that is capable of shifting bird-keeping trends from wild-caught birds to captive-bred alternatives would align easily with macro-policy agendas in Indonesia relating to pro-poor growth and the creation of more and better jobs. Such a policy instrument could provide exciting opportunities for conservationists to engage the interest and support of non-conservation sectors in Indonesia in efforts to conserve diminishing populations of wild birds.

219Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 35.2 (2012)© 2012 Museu de Ciències Naturals de BarcelonaISSN: 1578–665XRosell, C. & Llimona, F., 2012. Human–wildlife interactions. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 35.2: 219–220. The nature of wildlife management throughout the world is changing. The increase in the world’s human population has been accompanied by a rapid expansion of agricultural and urban areas and infrastructures, especially road and railway networks. Worldwide, wildlife habitats are being transformed and fragmented by human activities, and the behavior of several species has changed as a result of human activities. Some species have adapted easily to urban or peri–urban habitats and take advantage of the new resources available. These data provide the context for why human–wildlife interactions are increasing. At the 30th International Union of Game Biologists Congress held in Barcelona in early September 2011, in addition to two plenary presentations, 52 authors from 12 different countries and three continents presented 15 papers in the Interactions of Humans and Wildlife Session, three of which are included in this volume. To some extent, all the papers reflected the inherent difficulty in solving the complex problems caused either by rapidly increasing species that begin to inhabit urban and agricultural areas in numbers not seen previously (e.g. coyo-tes, Canis latrans, inhabiting big cities; wild boar, Sus scrofa, across western Europe; wood pigeons, Columba palumbus, in France), or species whose populations are threatened by human activities (e.g., Eurasian Lynx, Lynx lynx, in the Czech Republic). Some papers addressed the contentious issue of predator control (e.g., gamebirds in Great Britain), while others presented data regarding how human activities influenced animal behavior (e.g., pink footed geese, Anser brachyrhynchus; and red deer, Cervus elaphus, in Germany). The papers presented at the congress show how human activities affect the distributions and dynamics of wildlife populations and also change the behavior of some species. Wildlife causes social and economic con-flicts by damaging agricultural and forest resources, bringing about traffic collisions, and creating problems for residents in urban areas; while many are increasingly distant from nature and may not accept the presence of wildlife others may actively encourage the presence of wild animals. The first paper in this volume, by Cahill et al. (2012), analyzes the management challenges of the increasing abundance of wild boar in the peri–urban area of Barcelona. This conflict has arisen in other large cities in Europe and elsewhere. The presence of the species causes problems for many residents, to such an extent that it is considered a pest in these areas. Wild boar habituation has not only been facilitated by population expansion, but also by the attitudes of some citizens who encourage their presence by direct feeding. This leads to wild boar behavior modification and also promotes an increase in the fertility rate of habituated females, which are significantly heavier than non–habituated females. Public attitudes regarding the species and harvesting methods (at present most specimens are removed by live capture and subsequently sacrificed) are highlighted as one of the key factors in the management of the conflict. The second paper provides an example of how the distribution of irrigated croplands influences wild boar roadkills in NW Spain (Colino–Rabanal et al., 2012). By modeling the spatial distribution of wild boar collisions with vehicles and using generalized additive models based on GIS, the authors show that the number of roadkills is higher in maize croplands than in forested areas. This factor is the main explanatory variable in the model. The paper provides an excellent example of how the synergies of diverse human elements in the landscape (maize croplands and roads in this case) affect the location and dimensions of these types of conflicts. The third and final paper, by Belotti et al. (2012), addresses the effects of tourism on Eurasian lynx movements and prey usage at Šumava National Park in the Czech Republic. The monitoring of 5 GPS–collared lynxes and analyses of data regarding habitat features suggests that human disturbance (proximity of roads and tourist trails) can modify the presence of lynxes during the day close to the site where they have hidden a prey item, such as an ungulate, that can provide them with food for several days. In such cases, adequate management of tourism development must involve a commitment to species conservation. The analyses and understanding of all these phenomena and the design of successful wildlife management strategies and techniques used to mitigate the conflicts require a good knowledge base that considers informa-tion both about wildlife and human attitudes. The papers presented stress the importance of spatial analyses of the interactions and their relationship with landscape features and the location of human activities. Species distribution and abundance are related to important habitat variables such as provision of shelter, food, comfor-table spaces, and an appropriate climate. Therefore, it is essential to analyze these data adequately to predict where conflicts are most likely to arise and to design successful mitigation strategies. The second key factor for adequate management of human–wildlife interactions is to monitor system change. An analysis of the variety of data on population dynamics, hunting, wildlife collisions, and wildlife presence in urban areas would provide a basis for adaptive management. In this respect, in the plenary session, Steve Redpath mentioned the importance of the wildlife biologist’s attitude when interpreting and drawing conclusions from recorded data and stressed the importance of conducting clear, relevant, and transparent science for participants involved in the management decision process, which often involves a high number of stakeholders. All of the papers addressing the problems associated with human wildlife interactions were characterized by a common theme. Regardless of the specific nature of the problem, the public was generally divided on how the problem should be addressed. A particularly sensitive theme was that of population control methods, especially when conflicts are located in peri–urban areas. Several presenters acknowledged that public participation was necessary if a solution was to be reached. Some suggested, as have other authors (Heydon et al., 2010), that a legislative framework may be needed to reconcile human and wildlife interests. However, each problem that was presented appeared to involve multiple stakeholders with different opinions. Solving these kinds of problems is not trivial. Social factors strongly influence perceptions of human–wildlife conflicts but the methods used to mitigate these conflicts often take into account technical aspects but not people’s attitudes. A new, more innovative and interdisciplinary approach to mitigation is needed to allow us 'to move from conflict towards coexistence' (Dickman, 2010). Other authors also mentioned the importance of planning interventions that optimize the participation of experts, policy makers, and affected communities and include the explicit, systematic, and participatory evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternative interventions (Treves et al., 2009). One technique that has been used to solve problems like these is termed Structured Decision Making (SDM). This technique was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As described by Runge et al. (2009), the process is 'a formal application of common sense for situations too complex for the informal use of common sense', and provides a rational framework and techniques to aid in prescriptive decision making. Fundamentally, the process entails defining a problem, deciding upon the objectives, considering the alternative actions and the consequences for each, using the available science to develop a model (the plan), and then making the decision how to implement (Runge et al., 2009). Although complex, SDM uses a facilitator to guide stakeholders through the process to reach a mutually agreed–upon plan of action. It is clear that human–wildlife interactions are inherently complex because many stakeholders are usually involved. A rational approach that incorporates all interested parties would seem to be a productive way of solving these kinds of problems

One of the crucial issues of our decades is how to stop the loss of biodiversity. Policy–makers need reliable data to base their decisions on. Managing wildlife populations requires, first of all, science–based knowledge of their abundance, dynamics, ecology, behaviour and dispersal capacities based on reliable qualitative data. The importance of dialogue and communication with the local actors should be stressed (Sennerby Forsse, 2010) as bag statistics and other monitoring data in wildlife management could be more precise if local actors, notably hunters, were better informed and aware of their importance, especially in supporting existing and emerging policies at national and international levels. Another essential issue in wildlife management is the conflicts generated by humans and their activities when they interact with wildlife (Heredia & Bass, 2011). A sociologic approach is required to take into account those human groups whose interests are divergent, facilitating communication and collaborative learning among these users of the same ecosytem. Obstacles should be addressed and solutions devised to protect and encourage a sustainable use of this ecosystem in, as much as possible, a win–win relationship. Policy objectives and mana-gement strategies should be discussed and debated among the stakeholders involved, then formulated. Policies can be translated into different types of instruments, economic and legislative, but also informative and educa-tive. As awareness of the actors is a key factor of successful regulation, the regulations should be sufficiently explained and stakeholders should be involved in the implementation of these regulations as much as possible. Finally, the effectiveness of the regulations should be evaluated in light of their objectives, and where necessary, the regulations should be strengthened or adapted to improve their performance (Van Gossum et al., 2010).The various aspects of the processes described above were highlighted in the plenary talk and the five oral communications presented during the session on wildlife law and policy. In his plenary talk, Dr Borja Heredia, Head of the Scientific Unit of the Secretariat of the CMS/UNEP in Bonn, pointed out different sources of human–wildlife conflicts, such as the logging activities in subtropical forests that induce overexploitation and poaching for bushmeat consumption; the problem of predators on livestock and the poisoning of lions in the Masaï Reserve; animals invading the human territory; and game species as a vector of diseases in humans and livestock (Heredia & Bass, 2011). Heredia stressed the importance for wildlife managers to deal with the human dimension; he stressed the importance of successful conflict management based on principles such as a non–adversial framework, an analytical approach, a problem–solving orientation, the direct participation of the conflicting parties, dialogue as a basis for mutual understanding and facilitation by a trained third party. Heredia explained how the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (UNEP/CMS) contributes to confict resolution and in this way increases the chance of survival of these species. The CMS (see CMS website) works for the con-servation of a wide array of endangered migratory animals worldwide through the negotiation and implementation of agreements and action plans. Migratory species threatened with extinction are listed in Appendix I of the Con-vention. CMS parties strive towards strictly protecting these animals, conserving or restoring the places where they live, mitigating obstacles to migration and controlling other factors that might endanger them. Besides establishing obligations for each State joining the CMS, CMS promotes concerted action among the Range States of many of these species. Migratory species that need, or would significantly benefit from, international co–operation are listed in Appendix II of the Convention. For this reason, the Convention encourages the Range states to reach global or regional agreements. The Convention acts, in this res-pect as a framework convention. The Agreements may range from legally binding treaties (called agreements, there are seven) to less formal instruments, such as Memoranda of Understanding, or actions plans (there are 20), and they can be adapted to the requirements of particular regions. The development of models tailored according to the conservation needs throughout the migratory range is a unique capacity to CMS. Heredia detailed inter alia the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, the Great Apes Survival Part-nership, the Agreement on the Conservation of Gorillas and their Habitats, the MoU on the Saïga Antelope, and the Programme for the Conservation and sustainable use of the wild saker falcon (Falco cherrug) in Mongolia.The talk of Sarah Wilks, research fellow at the School of Law, University of Western Sydney, illus-trated the importance of adequate transparency and public consultation in environmental and conservation law and decision making. Wilks (2012) examined the Australian legislation concerning animal welfare and the export of Australian wildlife products and, as a case study, explored the Tasmanian State Government’s recent decision to promote the com-mercial harvest and export of brushtail possums She pointed out that although the Enviromment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation 1999 (EPBC) process intended to be open and co–operative, it is not, in prac-tice, co–operative, public and transparent. The export of possum products requires Australian Government approval under the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (EPBC). Wilks (2012) assessed the Tasmanian Wildlife Trade Management Plan for Common Brushtail Possums developed by the EPBC, the public submissions to the Austra-lian Government, and the Australian Government’s response against the provisions of the EPBC. As a result, she deplored that welfare outcomes, like that of back or pouch juveniles whose mother had been trapped or killed have not been adequately considered either at Tasmanian State or at Australian Govenment level. She concluded by deploring that submissions on ethical grounds could not yet be considered by the Australian Government because the decision to harvest or not to harvest is made at State level, and yet the Tasmanian State legislation is deficient in mandating public consultation.Data on hunting and game resources provide quan-titative and qualitative information on game species, but moreover, game monitoring has shown to be efficient in identifying threats to biodiversity, such as biodiversity problems in agriculture and forest ecosystems, and also to be an early warning in assessing threats from invasive alien species (Sennerby Forsse, 2010). They are an essential tool for game managers, scientists and policy–makers, and hunters and hunter organisations are key resources in the collection of this information.The ARTEMIS data bank was initiated by the Federation of Asssociations of Hunting and Conservation of the Euro-pean Union FACE (see ARTEMIS website) to improve information about game in support of existing and emer-ging European policies. The objective of ARTEMIS is to centralise and analyse, in a coordinated and coherent Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 35.2 (2012)161extending the ban to all waterfowl hunting and not only that undertaken in protected wetlands.The presentation of K. E. Skordas, from the Hunting Federation of Macedonia and Thrace, Research Divi-sion, Greece, illustrated the contribution of the Hellenic Hunters Confederation (HHC) to law enforcement for wildlife protection. It showed how stakeholders, hun-ters, set up heir own Game Warden Service in 1999, through their Hunting Associations, in order to assume responsibility for the control of illegal hunting and wil-dlife protection, in collaboration with the local Forest Service. These game wardens carry out repressive and preventive controls and prosecutions. Besides this initiative, information campaigns are organised by the HHC to improve hunters’ awareness (see website of the Hellenic Hunters Confederation, HHC). Skordas & Papaspyropoulos (2011) analysed the relation between law enforcement, hunter awareness and infringement categories, classed in degree of influencing wildlife protection. They observed a strong reduction in the number of infringements; particularly, they found that hunting out of season and hunting without a license decreased from 23.4% to 7.31% and from 30.12% to 11.8%, respectively.All the talks presented in this session stressed the importance of dialogue in wildlife management as a basis for mutual understanding. Communication and involvement of the local actors/stakeholders are key factors at different stages of wildlife management: when collecting reliable data on which policy–makers may draw up their decisions, when debating policy objectives and strategies, and when implementing regulations and administrative acts

Roads affect wildlife in different ways. Road construction increases fragmentation of habitats, influences landscape pattern and alters the physical environment. Roads act as barriers to animal movements, increase their mortality rates and cause other negative impacts on biodiversity. The current paper overviews the assessment of road impacts in Lithuania, reviews approaches applied to evaluation of road development impacts as well as analyses application of Lithuanian legal documents in the field. In Lithuania, assessment of possible effects inflicted by envisaged road construction is determined by the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment of Planned Economic Activities and orders of the Ministry of Environment. Although the legislation covers some aspects of biodiversity, little attention is given to the assessment of the impact on biodiversity; meanwhile the impact assessment of proposed economic activities on Natura 2000 sites is clarified more extensively. Lithuanian methodological guidelines on determination of environmental impact assessment procedures and principles for the road network do not comply with international requirements concerning the biodiversity impact assessment of roads. The practiced biodiversity impact assessment used for road development projects in Lithuania complies with minimum requirements used in developed countries. To fulfil international requirements on biodiversity conservation, it is necessary to amend the Lithuanian legislation on environmental impact assessment and issue guidelines on biodiversity protection in road development projects. The article proposes models for calculation of road pollution dispersion for evaluation of air quality next to the already existing and newly projected roads.