1. David Lehrer Advisors Prof Pua Bar Kutiel and Prof Nir Becker
Development of a cost efficient model for nature conservation in Israel
David Lehrer
Advisors
Prof Pua Bar Kutiel and Prof Nir Becker

2. Development of a cost efficient model for nature conservation in Israel
The aim of this study is to estimate the marginal cost function and marginal benefit function for nature conservation in Israel and to use these functions to build a supply curve for nature conservation in Israel.

3. Development of a cost efficient model for nature conservation in Israel
[1]
Where; Cost is the cost of operating the PA, x1,2,3… are the coefficients found in the multiple regression step analysis for a value of each predictor such as the area of nature reserves, the species richness in the area, the number of Redbook species in the area, a measure of ecosystem heterogeneity and other factors.

4. Development of a cost efficient model for nature conservation in Israel
[2]
Where; Benefit is the benefit that the PA provides to nature conservation, AA, BB, CC … are the factors for establishing conservation priorities such as, species richness, the number of Redbook species, ecosystem heterogeneity and other factors, W1, W2, W3…are the relative weights of conservation importance for each factor. These weights will be derived from the opinions of conservation experts.

5. Development of a cost efficient model for nature conservation in Israel
The model will be used to estimate the cost efficient distribution of limited conservation funding as well as to estimate the gap between current expenditure on conservation in Israel and the expenditure necessary to effectively achieve conservation goals.

6. Literature Review the Cost of Protecting Nature

7. Literature Review the Cost of Protecting Nature
Conclusions from Literature Review:
PA Size is a positive predictor of conservation costs
No consensus on other predictors

8. Hypothesis
We expect to find that PA size is a significant predictor of the variation in costs in Israel.
We expect to find that in addition to PA size, at least one or more additional PA attributes contributes significantly to predicting variation in conservation costs.
By studying the nature conservation marginal cost function, significant cost efficiencies can be achieved which will enable a higher level of nature conservation (more conservation goals achieved) for a given budget or enable reaching a given level of nature conservation (specific conservation goals) for a lower budget.

9. Methodology Linear Regression Data Mining: INPA budgets
GIS - species richness
GIS - abundance
GIS - red book species
GIS – habitat heterogeneity
Expert Surveys:
Invasive species
Tourism
Forest Fire Threat
Adequate resources

10. Data Normalization Financial Data – Range Area Budgets
Spatial Data – Reserve Areas
Species Data – Species Presence in Range Areas
Red Book Species Data – Red Book Species Presence in Range Areas
Fire Threat – GIS Layer
Tourism – List of tourist sites
Habitat Heterogeneity Data - Unfinished

11. Financial Data Organizational Structure of INPA
National Office in Jerusalem
5 Districts
15 Regions
43 Ranger Areas
Over 600 Nature Reserves

12. Decided not to study Yehuda and Shomron
Financial Data
Decided not to study Yehuda and Shomron
4 Districts
13 Regions
37 Ranger Areas
Over 600 Nature Reserves

13. Financial Data Original intended study unit: nature reserves
INPA budgets are set by Districts
No way to determine a budget for a nature reserve
Many conservation activities which protect the reserves takes place outside of the reserves – control of invasive species, supervision of infrastructure work
Unit of study: Ranger Areas
Needed to transform District Budgets to Ranger Area Budgets

15. INPA Northern District

16. In order to create Range Area Budgets
District Operation Budgets
District Development Budgets
Manager Surveys
Ranger Areas
Ranger Area Budgets

17. District Operation Budgets

18. District Development Budgets

19. Data Sets for Cost Function
N = 37 Ranger Areas
Regression
Dependent Variable: Range Area Budget
Candidate Independent Variables:
Range areas size
Aggregate reserve area
Number of reserves
Species richness
Species diversity
Threatened species
Invasive species
Fire threat
Tourism

20. Analysis of Data אושר מינים אזור פיקוח תקציב שוטף תקציב פיתוח
סה"כ תקציבים 2013 בש"ח
שטח פיקוח
שטח שמורות
יחס שמורה לפיקוח
מספר שמורות
נתוני נוכחות
מינים אדומים נומינלי
מינים אדומים משוקלל
חרמון
1,089,525
145,633
1,235,158
312.54
7.45
0.02 12
1,704
231
14,699
מרכז הגולן
459.89
28.89
0.06 19
1,147 2 75
יהודיה
132.53
36.73
0.28 3
919
דרום הגולן
329.76
60.72
0.18 13
1,254
903
גליל עליון מזרחי
1,198,478
144,106
1,342,583
467.88
46.21
0.10 37
1,679 70
4,133
הר מירון
231.30
101.77
0.44 14
1,370 33
1,520
גליל מערבי
274.84
24.99
0.09
883
חוף ים גליל מערבי
240.57
13.74 10
1,281 38
2,225
כנרת וגליל תחתון
980,573
157,106
1,137,678
428.96
19.53
0.05
1,324
גליל תחתון מערבי
151,106
1,131,678
456.42
16.21
0.04
1,315
111
גליל תחתון מזרחי
293.37
50.83
0.17 8
1,076
גלבוע
351,106
1,331,678
500.19
32.50 16
1,345
אלונים - שפרעם
1,162,160
155,467
1,317,627
418.81
4.27
0.01 7
1,232
565
כרמל
432.48
63.77
0.15 21
1,631 34
1,527
מנשה - אלונה
197,689
1,359,849
460.35
14.67
0.03 22
1,554 76
4,213
שרון
2,035,639
61,500
2,097,139
613.07
2.68
0.00
1,494
116
5,798
פלשת
678,546
65,500
744,046
946.08
14.18
1,768
313
ירושלים
1,357,093
119.90
0.31
1,257 15
620
הרי יהודה
33,000
2,068,639
417.05
25.16
שפלה דרומית
42,500
2,078,139
633.29
19.73
1,119
מישור חוף דרומי
102,500
1,459,593
861.79
33.05 11
1,247
מדבר יהודה
2,134,974
11,000
2,145,974
1,251.68
282.34
0.23 4
1,354
656
נגב צפוני
533,743
54,833
588,577
625.63
7.23
976
נגב מערבי
1,601,230
1,612,230
700.73
7.53
793
ערבה צפונית
53,750
587,493
891.79
383.41
0.43 5
788
בקעת צין והמכתש הגדול
1,067,487
1,078,487
1,133.90
315.12 9
945
עין עבדת ובקעת צין
58.45
19.98
0.34 1
590
ערבה מרכזית ועשוש
1,148.97
432.78
0.38
720
חולות עגור
1,511.45
240.24
0.16
849
הר הנגב הגבוה
30,833
564,577
1,048.53
125.78
0.12
מכתש רמון
544,743
889.63
558.67
0.63
886
606
מזרח הרמון
100.01
89.29
0.89
320
הר הנגב הדרומי
1,218.50
970.78
0.80
608
נחלים גדולים
878,296
137,417
1,015,713
1,410.63
431.95 6
572
ערבה דרומית
189,083
1,067,380
430.07
209.10
0.49
771
הרי אילת
162,417
1,040,713
383.46
310.99
0.81
970
מפרץ אילת
1,129,238
54,083
1,183,321
28.91
1.72 97

21. Initial Results Range Area Size

22. Initial Results Range Area Size

23. Initial Results Range Area Size

24. Initial Results Reserve Area

25. Initial Results Reserve Area

26. Initial Results Reserve Area

29. Initial Results Reserve Area Ln

30. Initial Results Reserve Area Ln

31. Initial Results Reserve Area Ln

32. Initial Results Reserve Area Ln

33. Literature Review the Cost of Protecting Nature
Conclusions from Literature Review:
PA Size is a positive predictor of conservation costs
No consensus on other predictors

34. So Far Research Hypothesis
This study will test the following hypotheses:
From a review of previous studies on the cost of nature conservation we expect to find that PA size is a significant predictor of the variation in costs in Israel.
PA size appears to be a significant predictor of operation and development costs. The relationship, however, between PA size and costs is negative.
We expect to find that in addition to PA size, at least one or more additional PA attributes contributes significantly to predicting variation in conservation costs.
I have not yet tested the model of multiple predictors but so far on an individual basis I have not found another significant predictor of operation and development cost variation.

35. Next Stage Research Hypothesis
This study will test the following hypotheses:
By studying the nature conservation marginal cost function, significant cost efficiencies can be achieved which will enable a higher level of nature conservation (more conservation goals achieved) for a given budget or enable reaching a given level of nature conservation (specific conservation goals) for a lower budget.
In order to create the marginal cost function (supply curve) for nature conservation, we must build a marginal benefit function which shows the incremental increase in conservation benefit as we add more and more PA’s (reserves) to our study area (Israel

36. Methodology Weighted Index Weight
Weight of Ecological Attributes of Range Areas
? %
A Species richness and abundance of individuals
B Presence of endangered and endemic species
C Diversity and uniqueness of habitats and ecosystems
D Connectivity between reserves and proximate natural areas
E Representativeness of nature reserves in Israel
F Geological phenomenon/geomorphological uniqueness
G Landscape and historical value for tourism
100%
Total

37. Weighted Index

38. Marginal Cost Curve (Supply Curve)