IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v440y2021ics0304380020304609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of stakeholder empowerment on crane population and agricultural production

Author

Listed:
  • Nilsson, L.
  • Bunnefeld, N.
  • Minderman, J.
  • Duthie, A. B

Abstract

Conflicts between opposing objectives of wildlife conservation and agriculture are increasing globally due to rising human food production and competition with wildlife over land use. Conservation conflicts are often complex and driven by variability and uncertainty in wildlife distribution and stakeholder wealth and power. To manage conflicts, empowering local stakeholders by decentralizing decisions and actions has been suggested to promote democratization and awareness of stakeholders. There is, however, a current gap in the understanding of how stakeholder empowerment (e.g., farmers’ and managers’ practical, time or monetary resources) affects policy effectiveness. In this study, we apply an individual-based model of management strategy evaluation to simulate the conservation conflict surrounding protected and thriving common cranes (Grus grus) causing damage to agricultural production in Sweden and along the European flyways. We model the effect of farmer empowerment (i.e., increasing budgets to affect populations and agricultural production) in four management scenarios, in which we manipulate the availability and cost of two actions farmers may take in response to crane presence on their land: non-lethal (scaring) or lethal (culling) control. We find that lower budgets lead to increases in population size due to increased use of less costly scaring instead of shooting. Higher farmer budgets lead to increased population extinction risk. Intermediate budgets allow farmers to control the population size around the management target and limit impact on agricultural production to intermediate levels. Our study highlights that stakeholder empowerment and culling strategies based on the number of stakeholders, and particularly their power to implement effective actions, needs careful consideration and monitoring when setting management targets and strategies. Further, our results show that empowering individual farmers has the potential to contribute to conflict management and to balance agricultural with conservation objectives, but increased stakeholder involvement also requires careful planning and monitoring.

Suggested Citation

  • Nilsson, L. & Bunnefeld, N. & Minderman, J. & Duthie, A. B, 2021. "Effects of stakeholder empowerment on crane population and agricultural production," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 440(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:440:y:2021:i:c:s0304380020304609
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380020304609
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109396?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Volker Grimm & Steven F. Railsback & Christian E. Vincenot & Uta Berger & Cara Gallagher & Donald L. DeAngelis & Bruce Edmonds & Jiaqi Ge & Jarl Giske & Jürgen Groeneveld & Alice S.A. Johnston & Alex, 2020. "The ODD Protocol for Describing Agent-Based and Other Simulation Models: A Second Update to Improve Clarity, Replication, and Structural Realism," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 23(2), pages 1-7.
    2. Johnson, Fred A. & Jensen, Gitte H. & Madsen, Jesper & Williams, Byron K., 2014. "Uncertainty, robustness, and the value of information in managing an expanding Arctic goose population," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 273(C), pages 186-199.
    3. Caroline Schill & John M. Anderies & Therese Lindahl & Carl Folke & Stephen Polasky & Juan Camilo Cárdenas & Anne-Sophie Crépin & Marco A. Janssen & Jon Norberg & Maja Schlüter, 2019. "A more dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthropocene," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(12), pages 1075-1082, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. An, Li & Grimm, Volker & Sullivan, Abigail & Turner II, B.L. & Malleson, Nicolas & Heppenstall, Alison & Vincenot, Christian & Robinson, Derek & Ye, Xinyue & Liu, Jianguo & Lindkvist, Emilie & Tang, W, 2021. "Challenges, tasks, and opportunities in modeling agent-based complex systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 457(C).
    2. Clark, Matt & Andrews, Jeffrey & Hillis, Vicken, 2022. "A quantitative application of diffusion of innovations for modeling the spread of conservation behaviors," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 473(C).
    3. Tardy, Olivia & Lenglos, Christophe & Lai, Sandra & Berteaux, Dominique & Leighton, Patrick A., 2023. "Rabies transmission in the Arctic: An agent-based model reveals the effects of broad-scale movement strategies on contact risk between Arctic foxes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 476(C).
    4. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.
    5. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Jens Lausen & Moritz Kohlhase, 2021. "Internalizing the externalities of overfunding: an agent-based model approach for analyzing the market dynamics on crowdfunding platforms," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(9), pages 1387-1430, November.
    6. Crevier, Lucas Phillip & Salkeld, Joseph H & Marley, Jessa & Parrott, Lael, 2021. "Making the best possible choice: Using agent-based modelling to inform wildlife management in small communities," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 446(C).
    7. Wang, Richard & Ye, Zhongnan & Lu, Miaojia & Hsu, Shu-Chien, 2022. "Understanding post-pandemic work-from-home behaviours and community level energy reduction via agent-based modelling," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    8. Dur, Gaël & Won, Eun-Ji & Han, Jeonghoon & Lee, Jae-Seong & Souissi, Sami, 2021. "An individual-based model for evaluating post-exposure effects of UV-B radiation on zooplankton reproduction," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 441(C).
    9. Johnson, Fred A. & Zimmerman, Guthrie S. & Jensen, Gitte H. & Clausen, Kevin K. & Frederiksen, Morten & Madsen, Jesper, 2020. "Using integrated population models for insights into monitoring programs: An application using pink-footed geese," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 415(C).
    10. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Medeiros-Sousa, Antônio Ralph & Lange, Martin & Mucci, Luis Filipe & Marrelli, Mauro Toledo & Grimm, Volker, 2024. "Modelling the transmission and spread of yellow fever in forest landscapes with different spatial configurations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 489(C).
    12. Watson, Joseph W & Boyd, Robin & Dutta, Ritabrata & Vasdekis, Georgios & Walker, Nicola D. & Roy, Shovonlal & Everitt, Richard & Hyder, Kieran & Sibly, Richard M, 2022. "Incorporating environmental variability in a spatially-explicit individual-based model of European sea bass✰," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 466(C).
    13. Khashayar Razghandi & Emad Yaghmaei, 2020. "Rethinking Filter: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Typology and Concept of Filter, Towards an Active Filter Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-34, September.
    14. Anshuka Anshuka & Floris F. Ogtrop & David Sanderson & Simone Z. Leao, 2022. "A systematic review of agent-based model for flood risk management and assessment using the ODD protocol," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2739-2771, July.
    15. Kjær, Lene J. & Schauber, Eric M., 2022. "The effect of landscape, transmission mode and social behavior on disease transmission: Simulating the transmission of chronic wasting disease in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    16. Butts, David J. & Thompson, Noelle E. & Christensen, Sonja A. & Williams, David M. & Murillo, Michael S., 2022. "Data-driven agent-based model building for animal movement through Exploratory Data Analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 470(C).
    17. Noeldeke, Beatrice & Winter, Etti & Ntawuhiganayo, Elisée Bahati, 2022. "Representing human decision-making in agent-based simulation models: Agroforestry adoption in rural Rwanda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    18. Petter, Gunnar & Kreft, Holger & Ong, Yongzhi & Zotz, Gerhard & Cabral, Juliano Sarmento, 2021. "Modelling the long-term dynamics of tropical forests: From leaf traits to whole-tree growth patterns," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 460(C).
    19. Bernardo Alves Furtado, 2022. "PolicySpace2: Modeling Markets and Endogenous Public Policies," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 25(1), pages 1-8.
    20. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:440:y:2021:i:c:s0304380020304609. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.