Economic assessment of rewilding versus agri-environmental nature management
- PDF / 486,431 Bytes
- 11 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 45 Downloads / 255 Views
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Economic assessment of rewilding versus agri-environmental nature management Jesper Sølver Schou , Jesper Bladt, Rasmus Ejrnæs, Maria Nyga˚rd Thomsen, Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel, Camilla Fløjgaard
Received: 22 June 2020 / Revised: 10 September 2020 / Accepted: 21 October 2020
Abstract Policies aiming at improving biodiversity often consist of costly agri-environmental schemes, i.e. subsidized grazing or mowing of semi-natural areas. However, these practices have widely been found to be insufficient to mitigate biodiversity loss. Rewilding, i.e. restoring natural processes in self-sustaining biodiverse ecosystems, has been proposed as an alternative and is hypothesized to be a more cost-efficient approach to promote biodiversity conservation. Rewilding requires the availability of large natural areas which are not allocated for farming, forestry, and infrastructure to avoid potential conflicts over the use of the area. We perform an ex-ante private cost–benefit analysis of the establishment of four large nature reserves for rewilding in Denmark. We analyse the economic effects of changing from summer grazing in nature areas in combination with cultivated fields and forestry to the establishment of nature reserves in four case areas. We consider two scenarios involving conversion of agriculture and forestry areas into natural areas in combination with either extensive year-round cattle grazing or rewilding with wild large herbivores. In two case areas, it appears possible to establish large nature areas without incurring extra costs. Additionally, rewilding further reduces costs compared to year-round cattle grazing. Two opposing effects were dominant: increased economic rent occurred from the shift from summer grazing to year-round grazing or rewilding, while cessation of agriculture and forestry caused opportunity costs. Keywords Biodiversity Conservation grazing Economic effects Ecosystem restoration Land sparing Nature management
INTRODUCTION Human impacts on global biodiversity are pervasive, with global extinction rates at more than 1000 times the natural background rate, mainly due to lack of appropriate habitats (Ceballos et al. 2017; Sa´nchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019). Regarding terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, the predominant driving force is the conversion and degradation of natural habitat for farming and forestry (Brondizio et al. 2019). To counteract habitat loss due to land use change, restoration and rewilding are increasingly being used as remedial actions. In 2019, the UN General Assembly officially adopted a resolution declaring 2021–2030 the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration. Ecosystem restoration implies ambitious biodiversity targets and a firm commitment to long-term land designation for conservation, both of which align with scientific consensus regarding land sparing as the most cost-effective approach to halting or reversing biodiversity loss (Phalan et al. 2011). Ecosystem restoration involves reversing habitat deterioration from factors such as drainage (Ze
Data Loading...
