Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-05T19:07:53.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of non-market values to inform conservation strategies for the threatened Alistana–Sanabresa cattle breed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2014

D. Martin-Collado ,
C. Diaz ,
A. G. Drucker ,
M. J. Carabaño  and
K. K. Zander
D. Martin-Collado
Affiliation:
Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal, INIA, Ctra. de La Coruña km. 7.5, 28040, Madrid, Spain
C. Diaz*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal, INIA, Ctra. de La Coruña km. 7.5, 28040, Madrid, Spain
A. G. Drucker
Affiliation:
Bioversity International, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00149, Maccarese, Rome, Italy
M. J. Carabaño
Affiliation:
Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal, INIA, Ctra. de La Coruña km. 7.5, 28040, Madrid, Spain
K. K. Zander
Affiliation:
The Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University, NT 0909, Darwin, Australia Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, NT 0909, Darwin, Australia
*
† E-mail: cdiaz@inia.es
Get access

Abstract

Livestock breed-related public good functions are often used to justify support for endangered breed conservation despite the fact that little is known about such non-market values. We show how stated preference techniques can be used to assess the non-market values that people place on livestock breeds. Through the application of a case study choice experiment survey in Zamora province, Spain, the total economic value (TEV) of the threatened Alistana–Sanabresa (AS) cattle breed was investigated. An analysis of the relative importance of the non-market components of its TEV and an assessment of the socio-economic variables that influence people’s valuation of such components is used to inform conservation strategy design. Overall, the findings reveal that the AS breed had significant non-market values associated with it and that the value that respondents placed on each specific public good function also varied significantly. Functions related with indirect use cultural and existence values were much more highly valued than landscape maintenance values. These high cultural and existence values (totalling over 80% of TEV) suggest that an AS in situ conservation strategy will be required to secure such values. As part of such a strategy, incentive mechanisms will be needed to permit farmers to capture some of these public good values and thus be able to afford to maintain breed population numbers at socially desirable levels. One such mechanism could be related to the development of breed-related agritourism initiatives, with a view to enhancing private good values and providing an important addition to continued direct support. Where linked with cultural dimensions, niche product market development, including through improving AS breed-related product quality and brand recognition may also have a role to play as part of such an overall conservation and use strategy. We conclude that livestock breed conservation strategies with the highest potential to maximise societal welfare would be those that secure the breed-related functions that people value most, with appropriate in situ conservation interventions and strategies being identified accordingly.

Keywords

Cattlebreedchoice modellingnon-market functionstotal economic value

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Special Issue 8: Agroecology: integrating animals in agroecosystems , August 2014 , pp. 1373 - 1381
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bateman, IJ, Carson, RT, Day, B, Hahnemann, WM, Hanley, N, Hutt, T, Jones-Lee, M, Loomes, G, Mourato, S, Özdemiroğlu, E, Pearce, DW, Sugden, R and Swanson, S 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cong, RG and Brady, M 2012. How to design a targeted agricultural subsidy system: efficiency or equity? PLos One 7, 1–12.Google Scholar
Drucker, A and Anderson, S 2004. Economic analysis of animal genetic resources and the use of rural appraisal methods: lessons from Southeast Mexico. International Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 2, 77–97.Google Scholar
Drucker, AG, Gomez, V and Anderson, S 2001. The economic valuation of farm animal genetic resources: a survey of available methods. Ecological Economics 36, 1–18.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2007a. The state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2007b. Global plan for action for animal genetic resources and the Interlaken declaration. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Hanley, N, Wright, RE and Adamowicz, V 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 11, 413–428.Google Scholar
Hensher, DA and Greene, WH 2003. The Mixed Logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30, 133–176.Google Scholar
Hensher, DA, Rose, JM and Greene, WH 2005. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiemstra, SJ, de Haas, Y, Mäki-Tanila, A and Gandini, G 2010. Local cattle breeds in Europe-development of policies and strategies for self-sustaining breeds. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Krishna, V, Drucker, AG, Pascual, U, Raghu, PT and EDIO, King 2013. Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries. Ecological Economics 87, 110–123.Google Scholar
Louviere, JJ, Hensher, DA and Swait, JD 2000. Choosing a way of life. In Stated choice methods. Analysis and applications (ed. JJ Louvier), pp. 1–33. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Luce, RD and Tukey, JW 1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
Marsh, D 2012. Water resource management in New Zealand: jobs or algal blooms? Journal of Environmental Management 109, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martín-Lopez, B, Montes, C and Benayas, J 2007. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139, 67–82.Google Scholar
McFadden, D 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Frontiers in econometrics (ed. P Zarembka), pp. 139–145. Academic Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, R 2003. The challenge of conserving indigenous domesticated animals. Ecological Economics 45, 501–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narloch, U, Drucker, AG and Pascual, U 2011. Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services (PACS) for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources. Ecological Economics 70, 1837–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, JM, Collins, AT, Bliemer, MCJ and Hensher, DA 2008. Ngene 1.0. Statistical Software. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Scarpa, R, Drucker, AG, Anderson, S, Ferraes-Ehuan, N, Gomez, V, Risopatron, CR and Rubio-Leonel, O 2003. Valuing animal genetic resources in peasant economies: the case of the ‘hairless’ creole pig in Yucatan. Ecological Economics 45, 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smale, M and Drucker, AG 2007. Agricultural development and the diversity of crop and livestock genetic resources: a review of the economics literature. In Biodiversity economics principles, methods and applications (ed. A Kontoleon, U Pascual and T Swanson), pp. 623–648. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Thiene, M and Scarpa, R 2009. Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models. Environmental and Resource Economics 44, 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanes García, JE 2000. Catálogo de razas autóctonas de Castilla y León (España) – Región Norte de Portugal, I; Especies bovina y equina. Fundación Rei Alfonso Henriques, Salamanca, Spain.Google Scholar
Zander, KK and Drucker, AG 2008. Conserving what’s important: using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa. Ecological Economics 68, 34–45.Google Scholar
Zander, KK, Signorello, G, De Salvo, M, Gandini, G and Drucker, AG 2013. Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy. Ecological Economics 93, 219–229.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Martin-Collado Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Martin-Collado Supplementary Material(File)
File 23.4 KB