Advanced

Building public trust in compensation programs through accuracy assessments of damage verification protocols

López-Bao, José V.; Frank, Jens ; Svensson, Linn; Åkesson, Mikael LU and Langefors, Åsa LU (2017) In Biological Conservation 213. p.36-41
Abstract

Reliable verification of damage claims is fundamental to create public trust in the legitimacy of compensation programs, and avoid fraud and moral hazards. However, after decades of using this tool, transparency in verification processes and availability of quantitative information on the accuracy and misidentification rates are unresolved issues. Accurate rules overcome several challenges facing compensation programs worldwide, such as the difficulty of proving claims, lack of compensation or insufficiency of community support. Here, we tested the accuracy of the verification protocol of damage claims used in Sweden for large carnivore depredations on sheep. In Sweden, verifiers (who will determine if a livestock owner is compensated... (More)

Reliable verification of damage claims is fundamental to create public trust in the legitimacy of compensation programs, and avoid fraud and moral hazards. However, after decades of using this tool, transparency in verification processes and availability of quantitative information on the accuracy and misidentification rates are unresolved issues. Accurate rules overcome several challenges facing compensation programs worldwide, such as the difficulty of proving claims, lack of compensation or insufficiency of community support. Here, we tested the accuracy of the verification protocol of damage claims used in Sweden for large carnivore depredations on sheep. In Sweden, verifiers (who will determine if a livestock owner is compensated or not after a suspected attack) uses rules grounded on typical bite marks from each predator species on animal carcasses. Contrasted with DNA salivary analysis, verifiers correctly identified wolf and lynx as the culprit species in 86% (n = 57) and 91% (n = 11) of cases tested, respectively, and the overall accuracy in identifying a predation event was 94%. We believe that rigorous tests of current damage verification protocols are essential to show people the frequency that predation results in compensation, as well as how often other causes of livestock death or injury are erroneously interpreted as being inflicted by large carnivores. The use of DNA salivary analysis to test the accuracy of damage verification protocols is transferable to any livestock-carnivore conflict scenario worldwide, as well as to other wildlife, such as ungulates browsing on forest plantations and crops.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Canis lupus, Compensation programs, Conflict mitigation, DNA salivary analysis, Large carnivores, Livestock depredation, Lynx lynx, Verification protocol
in
Biological Conservation
volume
213
pages
6 pages
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • scopus:85030655378
  • wos:000410014100006
ISSN
0006-3207
DOI
10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.033
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
47d16ffd-54c9-4d1a-b928-af9db7e3f47c
date added to LUP
2017-10-16 14:02:03
date last changed
2018-01-16 13:23:18
@article{47d16ffd-54c9-4d1a-b928-af9db7e3f47c,
  abstract     = {<p>Reliable verification of damage claims is fundamental to create public trust in the legitimacy of compensation programs, and avoid fraud and moral hazards. However, after decades of using this tool, transparency in verification processes and availability of quantitative information on the accuracy and misidentification rates are unresolved issues. Accurate rules overcome several challenges facing compensation programs worldwide, such as the difficulty of proving claims, lack of compensation or insufficiency of community support. Here, we tested the accuracy of the verification protocol of damage claims used in Sweden for large carnivore depredations on sheep. In Sweden, verifiers (who will determine if a livestock owner is compensated or not after a suspected attack) uses rules grounded on typical bite marks from each predator species on animal carcasses. Contrasted with DNA salivary analysis, verifiers correctly identified wolf and lynx as the culprit species in 86% (n = 57) and 91% (n = 11) of cases tested, respectively, and the overall accuracy in identifying a predation event was 94%. We believe that rigorous tests of current damage verification protocols are essential to show people the frequency that predation results in compensation, as well as how often other causes of livestock death or injury are erroneously interpreted as being inflicted by large carnivores. The use of DNA salivary analysis to test the accuracy of damage verification protocols is transferable to any livestock-carnivore conflict scenario worldwide, as well as to other wildlife, such as ungulates browsing on forest plantations and crops.</p>},
  author       = {López-Bao, José V. and Frank, Jens  and Svensson, Linn and Åkesson, Mikael and Langefors, Åsa},
  issn         = {0006-3207},
  keyword      = {Canis lupus,Compensation programs,Conflict mitigation,DNA salivary analysis,Large carnivores,Livestock depredation,Lynx lynx,Verification protocol},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {09},
  pages        = {36--41},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Biological Conservation},
  title        = {Building public trust in compensation programs through accuracy assessments of damage verification protocols},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.033},
  volume       = {213},
  year         = {2017},
}