IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0105042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial Costs of Large Carnivore Translocations – Accounting for Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Florian J Weise
  • Ken J Stratford
  • Rudolf J van Vuuren

Abstract

Human-carnivore conflict continues to present a major conservation challenge around the world. Translocation of large carnivores is widely implemented but remains strongly debated, in part because of a lack of cost transparency. We report detailed translocation costs for three large carnivore species in Namibia and across different translocation scenarios. We consider the effect of various parameters and factors on costs and translocation success. Total translocation cost for 30 individuals in 22 events was $80,681 (US Dollars). Median translocation cost per individual was $2,393, and $2,669 per event. Median cost per cheetah was $2,760 (n = 23), and $2,108 per leopard (n = 6). One hyaena was translocated at a cost of $1,672. Tracking technology was the single biggest cost element (56%), followed by captive holding and feeding. Soft releases, prolonged captivity and orphaned individuals also increased case-specific costs. A substantial proportion (65.4%) of the total translocation cost was successfully recovered from public interest groups. Less than half the translocations were confirmed successes (44.4%, 3 unknown) with a strong species bias. Four leopards (66.7%) were successfully translocated but only eight of the 20 cheetahs (40.0%) with known outcome met these strict criteria. None of the five habituated cheetahs was translocated successfully, nor was the hyaena. We introduce the concept of Individual Conservation Cost (ICC) and define it as the cost of one successfully translocated individual adjusted by costs of unsuccessful events of the same species. The median ICC for cheetah was $6,898 and $3,140 for leopard. Translocations are costly, but we demonstrate that they are not inherently more expensive than other strategies currently employed in non-lethal carnivore conflict management. We conclude that translocation should be one available option for conserving large carnivores, but needs to be critically evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian J Weise & Ken J Stratford & Rudolf J van Vuuren, 2014. "Financial Costs of Large Carnivore Translocations – Accounting for Conservation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105042
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105042
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105042&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0105042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1996. "Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-16.
    2. Zabel, Astrid & Holm-Muller, Karin, 2007. "Performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden," Discussion Papers 57031, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Johnson, Sandra & Mengersen, Kerrie & de Waal, Alta & Marnewick, Kelly & Cilliers, Deon & Houser, Ann Marie & Boast, Lorraine, 2010. "Modelling cheetah relocation success in southern Africa using an Iterative Bayesian Network Development Cycle," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(4), pages 641-651.
    4. D. N. Sparks, 1973. "Euclidean Cluster Analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 22(1), pages 126-130, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    2. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Ariane Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2015. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 729-744.
    4. Schilizzi, Steven & Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2011. "Does tendering conservation contracts with performance payments generate additional benefits?," Working Papers 100883, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Public Support for Sustainable Commercial Harvesting of Wildlife: An Australian Case Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51418, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    6. Bocci, Corinne F. & Lupi, Frank & Sohngen, Brent, 2018. "Timber or Carbon? Evaluating forest conservation strategies through a discrete choice experiment conducted in northern Guatemala," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274011, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Perry, Neil, 2010. "The ecological importance of species and the Noah's Ark problem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 478-485, January.
    8. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258281, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Tisdell, Clem & Nantha, Hemanath Swarna & Wilson, Clevo, 2007. "Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 627-633, January.
    10. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Introduction to the Political Economy of Environmental Regulations," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-12, Resources for the Future.
    11. Muhly, Tyler B. & Musiani, Marco, 2009. "Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching economy in the Northwestern U.S," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2439-2450, June.
    12. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "Where to drill? The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 320-327.
    13. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Australian Tropical Reptile Species: Ecological Status, Public Valuation and Attitudes to their Conservation and Commercial Use," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51408, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    14. Subroy, Vandana & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E., 2018. "To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 114-122.
    15. Swallow, Stephen K., 1996. "Economic Issues in Ecosystem Management: An Introduction and Overview," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 83-100, October.
    16. Stewart-Koster, Ben & Dieu Anh, Nguyen & Burford, Michele A. & Condon, Jason & Qui, Nguyen Van & Hiep, Le Huu & Bay, Doan Van & Sammut, Jesmond, 2017. "Expert based model building to quantify risk factors in a combined aquaculture-agriculture system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 230-240.
    17. Michael R. Moore & Elizabeth B. Maclin & David W. Kershner, 2001. "Testing Theories of Agency Behavior: Evidence from Hydropower Project Relicensing Decisions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 423-442.
    18. Andrew B. Whitford, 2007. "Competing Explanations for Bureaucratic Preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 219-247, July.
    19. J.K. Horowitz, 2002. "Preferences in the Future," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 21(3), pages 241-258, March.
    20. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 21-34, Summer.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.