Agricultural and urban land use policies to manage human–wildlife conflicts

Jun Yoshida, Tomoko Imoto and Tatsuhito Kono

MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: Human–wildlife conflicts occur in residential areas, causing human injuries and outbreaks of zoonotic diseases. Governments have implemented policies, such as extermination, and construction of animal deterrent fences. When wildlife has a high biological value, we face a trade-off between the benefits of wildlife conservation and human safety. This study proposes a new policy of growing crops preferred by wildlife, rather than crops for human consumption, in part of the farmland, thereby attracting wildlife to the converted field and preventing them from entering residential areas. Using an ecosystem-urban economics model, we compare multiple policies including the conversion policy in terms of social welfare, and show that, regardless of the wildlife value, the crop conversion policy can be the most efficient, and fences with land use regulation is the second most efficient policy. On the other hand, the commonly-used policy of extermination is not so effective because exterminating wildlife with a high biological value significantly reduces social welfare.Human–wildlife conflicts occur in residential areas, causing human injuries and outbreaks of zoonotic diseases. Governments have implemented policies, such as extermination, and construction of animal deterrent fences. When wildlife has a high biological value, we face a trade-off between the benefits of wildlife conservation and human safety. This study proposes a new policy of growing crops preferred by wildlife, rather than crops for human consumption, in part of the farmland, thereby attracting wildlife to the converted field and preventing them from entering residential areas. Using an ecosystem-urban economics model, we compare multiple policies including the conversion policy in terms of social welfare, and show that, regardless of the wildlife value, the crop conversion policy can be the most efficient, and fences with land use regulation is the second most efficient policy. On the other hand, the commonly-used policy of extermination is not so effective because exterminating wildlife with a high biological value significantly reduces social welfare.

Keywords: Human–wildlife conflict; land use regulation; extermination; animal deterrent fence; ecosystem conservation; urban economics model (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q28 R11 R14 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022-11-15
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-agr, nep-env and nep-ure
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/115375/1/MPRA_paper_115375.pdf original version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:115375

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joachim Winter ().