Comparative costs and conservation of wild species in situ, e.g. orangutans

Abstract

The extent to which conservation is feasible is constrained by budgets and the financial sacrifice stakeholders are willing to bear. Therefore a possible objective for conserving a species is to minimise the cost of achieving that stated aim. For example, if a minimum viable population (MVP) of a species is to be conserved, the size and type of habitats reserved for this could be selected to minimise cost. This requires consideration of the comparative (relative) opportunity costs of reserving different land types for conservation. A general model is developed to demonstrate this and is applied to the case of the orangutan. In the ecological literature, recommendations for reserving different types of land for conservation have been based on comparisons of either the absolute economic returns they generate if converted to commercial use or on differences in the density of a species they support. These approaches are shown to be deficient because they ignore relative trade-offs between species population and economic conversion gains at alternative sites. The proposed model is illustrated for orangutan conservation.

Introduction

The importance of opportunity costs and comparative opportunity costs for the optimal allocation of resources has been emphasised in the economic literature since the early 19th century (Ricardo, 1817). In discussing the implications of comparative opportunity cost, Ricardo emphasised that differences in the relative opportunity costs of resource use rather than differences in absolute opportunity costs are relevant for determining the optimal economic use of resources. Although Ricardo applied this principle to the determination of optimal specialisation in international trade, his theory of comparative advantage can be applied to other resource allocation problems, including the allocation of land use so as to achieve conservation goals at minimum economic cost. However, the significance of Ricardo's theory has not been adequately recognised in the literature focusing on the choice of ecological policies (see Cullen, 2009). This can lead to errors in recommendations for the best allocation of available land for the conservation of wild nature and for commercial use such as for agricultural development.

The World Conservation Strategy (IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1980) and its successor Caring for the World (IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1991) recommended that the most productive land for agriculture or for similar commercial purposes be set aside for agriculture rather than be conserved. This implies that land having a low productivity from a commercial point of view should be reserved for conservation purposes. However, as pointed out in Tisdell (and Tisdell, 1991 pp. 29–31; Tisdell, 2005 pp. 34–38), this ignores the principle of comparative advantage, that is, the comparative (or relative) productivity of land when used for alternative purposes. It relies on a comparison of absolute opportunity costs (economic returns forgone) rather than relative opportunity costs as the basis for determining the purpose for which land is used. Making this distinction is important because the absolute-cost principle does not ensure that conservation goals are achieved at minimum economic costs. Minimising economic costs makes conservation more attractive or palatable to decision-makers; more habitats or a larger population of a species could be conserved for a given amount of resources or for less monetary sacrifice.

Models have been proposed for optimising absolute economic returns and species richness over a given landscape (e.g., Polasky et al., 2008). The purpose of this article however is to show how the economic principle of comparative advantage can be applied to decisions about conserving different types of land and their associated habitats so as to achieve the probable survival of a single species' population at minimum economic cost. The principle is illustrated by taking the survival of the orangutan in Southeast Asia as a particular case. After discussing conceptual issues involved in this analysis and its sometimes counterintuitive results, general obstacles to conserving the orangutan are outlined. The economics of reserving different types of land areas for the conservation of the orangutan in Borneo, such as peat swamps and other land types, is then assessed. The scope for the general application of this analysis is discussed.