scholarly journals The Conservation Costs of Game Ranching

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross T Pitman ◽  
Julien Fattebert ◽  
Samual T Williams ◽  
Kathryn S Williams ◽  
Russell A Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Game Ranching ◽  
Conservation Costs

scholarly journals Conservation Costs Drive Enrolment in Agglomeration Bonus Scheme

2021 ◽  
Vol 186 ◽  
pp. 107064
Author(s):  
Robert Huber ◽  
Astrid Zabel ◽  
Mirjam Schleiffer ◽  
Willemijn Vroege ◽  
Julia M. Brändle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conservation Costs ◽  
Agglomeration Bonus

scholarly journals Agricultural intensification escalates future conservation costs

2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (19) ◽  
pp. 7601-7606 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Phelps ◽  
L. R. Carrasco ◽  
E. L. Webb ◽  
L. P. Koh ◽  
U. Pascual
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Intensification ◽  
Conservation Costs

Game Ranching

Science ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 220 (4603) ◽  
pp. 1228-1228
Author(s):  
Gordon Matzke
Keyword(s):  
Game Ranching

scholarly journals A Survey of the Environmental Conservation Costs by Local Authorities in Kenya

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-102
Author(s):  
Nicholas Muthuma Mutua ◽  
Samuel Kakui Kilika
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Environmental Conservation ◽  
Environmental Costs ◽  
Motivating Factors ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Conservation Costs

This study investigates the environmental conservation costs of the local authorities in Kenya by analyzing the data collected from 90 of these local authorities. The population of the study is the 175 local authorities in Kenya. A sample of 90 local authorities has been used. Both statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 17 and Excel have been used to determine the level of environmental conservation costs in the studied local authorities. The results indicated that there was a wide use of environmental conservation costs among the local authorities. The study provides preliminary evidence on environmental conservation costs used by local authorities in Kenya. Further research is suggested to explore the possible motivating factors among different local authorities’ degree of application and level of environmental costs in different activities.

scholarly journals Ecological Land Conservation Strategies Explained By Urban Growth and Climate Change

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shi Zhao ◽  
Quan Shao
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Urban Growth ◽  
Threshold Effect ◽  
Land Conservation ◽  
Conservation Strategies ◽  
Erosion Risk ◽  
Conservation Costs ◽  
Game Environment ◽  
Mitigate Climate Change ◽  
Asymmetric Game

Abstract Rising urban population throughout the world have boosted land use demand, intensifying pressure of ecological land resources linked with climate change. By incorporating risk into assessment, people can discourage excessive growth in megacity areas. Here, we propose a generalized analysis framework of ecological land conservation by devising a public goods game, which simultaneously considers population gravity and climate change along with interactions. Our method describes strategic conservation under the growth risk of urban boundary, where recurs across multiple rounds. We find that a compact and reasonable city with spatial structure will reduces erosion risk of ecological land and the lower costs of conservation, and higher its benefits. The conservation costs at the equilibrium do not increase with the degree of emphasis on the future, which show threshold effect. Ecological lands at the city boundaries have highest eroding risk, but rather pay a disproportionate amount of cost in this asymmetric game environment, which makes controlling erosion of ecological land less sustainable. Overall, our results suggest that implementing conservation strategies will efficiently reduce aggregate damages of urban growth and mitigate climate change, otherwise it may increase increases ecological land damages substantially.

scholarly journals Implications of Spatially Variable Costs and Habitat Conversion Risk in Landscape-Scale Conservation Planning

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 402-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Post van der Burg ◽  
Neil Chartier ◽  
Ryan Drum
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Variation ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Tallgrass Prairie ◽  
Habitat Conservation ◽  
Optimal Placement ◽  
Management Actions ◽  
The North ◽  
Conservation Costs ◽  
Conservation Actions

Abstract “Strategic habitat conservation” refers to a process used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop cost-efficient strategies for conserving wildlife populations and their habitats. Strategic habitat conservation focuses on resolving uncertainties surrounding habitat conservation to meet specific wildlife population objectives (i.e., targets) and developing tools to guide where conservation actions should be focused on the landscape. Although there are examples of using optimization models to highlight where conservation should be delivered, such methods often do not explicitly account for spatial variation in the costs of conservation actions. Furthermore, many planning approaches assume that habitat protection is a preferred option, but they do not assess its value relative to other actions, such as restoration. We developed a case study to assess the implications of accounting for and ignoring spatial variation in conservation costs in optimizing conservation targets. We included assumptions about habitat loss to determine the extent to which protection or restoration would be necessary to meet an established population target. Our case study focused on optimal placement of grassland protection or restoration actions to influence bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus populations in the tallgrass prairie ecoregion of the north central United States. Our results show that not accounting for spatially variable costs doubled or tripled the cost of meeting the population target. Furthermore, our results suggest that one should not assume that protecting existing habitat is always a preferred option. Rather, our results show that the balance between protection and restoration can be influenced by a combination of desired targets, assumptions about habitat loss, and the relative cost of the two actions. Our analysis also points out how difficult it may be to reach targets, given the expense to meet them. We suggest that a full accounting of expected costs and benefits will help to guide development of viable management actions and meaningful conservation plans.

Economics of the Biodiversity Convention

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne C. Burgess
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Global Public Good ◽  
Aichi Targets ◽  
Conservation Costs ◽  
Sixth Mass Extinction ◽  
The World ◽  
Biodiversity Convention

Biological diversity refers to the variety of life on Earth, in all its forms and interactions. Biological diversity, or biodiversity for short, is being lost at an unprecedented rate. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species estimates that 25% of mammals, 41% of amphibians, 33% of reef building corals, and 13% of birds are threatened with extinction. These biodiversity benefits are being lost due to conversion of natural habitat, overharvesting, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. The loss of biodiversity is important because it provides many critical resources, services, and ecosystem functions, such as foods, medicines, clean air, and storm protection. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose a major risk to human societies and economic welfare. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was established in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio “Earth Summit”) and enacted in 1993. The international treaty aims to conserve biodiversity and ensure the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. The CBD has near universal global participation with 196 parties signatory to the treaty. The non-legally binding commitments established in 2010 by the CBD are known as the Aichi Targets. They include the goal of conserving at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water habitats and 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. Biodiversity continues to decline at an unprecedented rate and the world faces “biological annihilation” and a sixth mass extinction event. There are several underlying causes of the continuing loss of biodiversity that need to be addressed. First, the CBD Aichi Targets are not ambitious enough and should be extended to protect as much as 50% of the terrestrial realm for biodiversity. Second, it is difficult to place an economic value on the range of direct, indirect, and nonuse values of biodiversity. The failure to take into account the full economic value of biodiversity in prices, projects, and policy decisions means that biodiversity is often misused and overused. Third, biodiversity is a global public good and displays nonrival and nonexcludable characteristics. Because of this, it is difficult to raise sufficient funds for conservation and to channel these funds to cover local conservation costs. In particular, much of the world’s biodiversity is located in (mainly tropical) developing countries, and they do not have the incentive or the funds to spend the money to “save” enough biodiversity on behalf of the rest of the world. The funding for global biodiversity conservation is $4–$10 billion annually, whereas around $100 billion a year is needed to protect the Earth’s broad range of animal and plant species. This funding gap undermines CBD’s conservation efforts. Governments and international organizations have been unable to raise the investments needed to reverse the decline in biological populations and habitats on land and in oceans. There is an important role for private-sector involvement in the CBD to endorse efforts for more sustainable use of biodiversity and to contribute funds to finance conservation and habitat protection efforts.

Conservation Costs of PGRFA

1999 ◽  
pp. 101-150
Author(s):  
Detlef Virchow
Keyword(s):  
Conservation Costs

scholarly journals Veld management with specific reference to game ranching in the grassland and savanna areas of South Africa

Koedoe ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
W.S.W. Trollope
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Nature Conservation ◽  
National Parks ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Game Ranching ◽  
Over Time

Veld management refers to the management of natural vegetation for specific objectives related to different forms of land use. In the wildlife context a wide spectrum of different forms of land use are practised ranging from pure nature conservation in large national parks through to smaller areas used for game farming. Consequently the products useable to society emanating from these areas vary greatly, and therefore the management of veld stocked with wildlife is extremely complex and must be adapted to the particular form of land use that is being practised. A generally accepted principle is that the smaller the area being used for wildlife the more intensively it must be managed, particularly game ranches. A prerequisite for the development of an effective veld management program is a comprehensive assessment of the condition of the veld upon which realistic veld management practices can be formulated. These practices will include stocking the veld with the appropriate species and numbers of animals, grazing and browsing management, veld burning and the provision of watering points. Finally a programme for monitoring veld condition over time is a prerequisite for sound veld management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document