IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Counting the cost of vulture decline--An appraisal of the human health and other benefits of vultures in India

Listed author(s):
  • Markandya, Anil
  • Taylor, Tim
  • Longo, Alberto
  • Murty, M.N.
  • Murty, S.
  • Dhavala, K.

Widespread use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) diclofenac to treat livestock has resulted in dramatic declines in the populations of vultures across India. This has become an issue of considerable concern as vultures are a keystone species and their decline has a range of socio-economic, as well as cultural and biodiversity impacts. In this paper, we review these impacts and estimate in detail the economic cost of one of them: the human health impacts of the vulture decline. Livestock carcasses provide the main food supply for vultures, and are also eaten by dogs. Dogs are the main source of rabies in humans in India, and their populations have increased substantially in parallel with the vulture decline. The potential human health impact of rabies associated with the vulture decline is found to be significant. This, and a wide range of other impacts suggest that significant resources should be put into (1) testing of pharmaceutical products to ensure that similar situations are not repeated, (2) helping vulture populations to recover through the use of alternative drugs to diclofenac that are of low toxicity to vultures, and (3) through conservation breeding programmes.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(08)00178-X
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 67 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
Pages: 194-204

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:67:y:2008:i:2:p:194-204
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. J. M. Bowker & John R. Stoll, 1988. "Use of Dichotomous Choice Nonmarket Methods to Value the Whooping Crane Resource," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(2), pages 372-381.
  2. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
  3. Harrington, Winston & Portney, Paul R., 1987. "Valuing the benefits of health and safety regulation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 101-112, July.
  4. Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
  5. Lauraine G. Chestnut & Bart D. Ostro & Nuntavarn Vichit-Vadakan, 1997. "Transferability of Air Pollution Control Health Benefits Estimates from the United States to Developing Countries: Evidence from the Bangkok Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1630-1635.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:67:y:2008:i:2:p:194-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.