The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: A policy and contingent valuation study

Ecological Economics

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 93-107

  Bandara, Ranjith ^a,b   Tisdell, Clem ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBO   (Sri Lanka)

Author keywords

Asian elephant; Contingent valuation; Elephant conservation; Elephas maximus; Sri Lanka; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; CONSERVATION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ELEPHANT; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ASIA; COLOMBO; EURASIA; SOUTH ASIA; SRI LANKA; WESTERN PROVINCE [SRI LANKA];

ELEPHANT; ELEPHANTIDAE; ELEPHAS; ELEPHAS MAXIMUS;

EID: 0742302450     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Alberine A., Kanninen B., Carson R.T. Modelling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Econ. 73:1997;309-324.
2. Bandara R., Tisdell C. Conserving Asian elephants: economic issues illustrated by Sri Lankan concerns. Tisdell C.A. The Economics of Conserving of Wildlife and Natural Areas. 2002;193-211 Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
3. Bandara, R., Tisdell, C., 2002b. Asian Elephants as Agricultural Pests: Damages, Economics of Control and Compensation in Sri Lanka. Economics, Ecology and the Environment, Working Paper No. 65, School of Economics, The University of Queensland, Qld 4072, Australia.
4. Bateman I.J., Willis K.G. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in US, EU and Developing Countries. 1999;Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
5. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H., Jones A.P., Kerr G.N. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resour. Energ. Econ. 23:2001;191-213.
6. Berrens R.P., Smith H.J., Bohara A.K., Silva C.L. Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 44:2002;144-168.
7. Bohara M., Mckee M., Berrens H., Smith H.J., Silva C., Brookshire D. Effects of cost and group size information on willingness to pay responses: open ended vs. dichotomous choice. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 35:1998;142-163.
8. Bowker J.M., Stoll J.R. Use of dichotomous choice non-market method to value whooping crane resource. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 70:1988;372-381.
9. Boyle K.J., Bergstrom J.C. Benefits transfer studies: myths, pragmatism, and idealism. Water Resour. Res. 28:1992;675-683.
10. Boyle K.J., Bishop R.C. Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analyses: a case study involving endangered species. Water Resour. Res. 23:1987;943-950.
11. Brouwer R., Spaninks F.A. The validity of environmental benefits transfer: further empirical testing. Environ. Econ. Manage. 14:1999;95-117.
12. Carson R.T., Wright J., Alberini A., Carson N., Flores N. A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers. 1994;Natural Resource Damage Assessment Incorporation, La Jolla, CA.
13. Carson T.R., Flores N.E., Martin K.M., Wright J.L. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ. 72:1996;80-99.
14. Champ R., Bishop R., Brown T., McCollum D. Using donation mechanism to value non-use benefits from public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 33:1997;151-163.
15. Chilton S., Hutchinson W. Some further implications of incorporating warm glow of giving into welfare measures: a comment on the use of donation mechanisms by Champ et al. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 37:1999;202-209.
16. Cooper J. A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measures from dichotomous choice contingent valuation survey. Land Econ. 70:1994;111-122.
17. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka, 2002. Census of Population and Housing - 2001. Department of Census and Statistics, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
18. De Silva M. Status and conservation of the elephant and the alleviation of man-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Gajah. 19:1998;1-24.
19. Desai, A.A., 1998. Conservation of Elephants and Human-Elephant Conflict, Technical Report, Department of Wildlife Conservation, Colombo, Sri Lanka, (unpublished).
20. Application of the Contingent Valuation Method in Developing Countries: A Survey. 2000;Information Division, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy.
21. Feather P., Hellerstein D. Calibrating benefit function transfer to assess the conservation reserve program. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79:1997;151-162.
22. Garrod G., Willis K.G. Economic Valuation of the Environment: Method and Case Studies. 1999;Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
23. Gregory R., Mendelsohn R., Moore T. Measuring the benefits of endangered species preservation: from research to policy. J. Environ. Manage. 29:1989;399-407.
24. Hadker N., Sharma S., David A., Muraleedharan T.R. Willingness to pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 21:1997;105-122.
25. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66:1984;332-341.
26. Hanemann W.M., Loomis J., Kanninen B.J. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73:1991;1255-1263.
27. Heinen J.T. Park-people relation in Kosi Tappu wildlife reserve, Nepal: a socio economic analysis. Environ. Conserv. 20:1993;25-34.
28. Hoehn J., Randall A. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 14:1987;226-247.
29. Read List of Threatened Animals. 1996;IUCN Gland, Switzerland.
30. Jaibi R.M., Raa T.T. An asymptotic foundation for logit models. Reg. Sci. Urba. Econ. 28:1998;75-90.
31. Jakobsson K.M., Dragun A.K. Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species: Methodological Issues and Applications. 1996;Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
32. Jayawardene J. Elephant and Mahaweli: a 15-year study. Sri Lanka Nat. 2:1998;45-51.
33. Johannesson M., Liljas B., Johannesson O.P. An experimental compression of dichotomous choice contingent valuation question and real purchase decisions. Appl. Econ. 30:1998;643-647.
34. Jordan J.L., Elnagheeb A.H. Consequences of using different question formats in contingent valuation: a Monte Cario study. Land Econ. 70:1994;97-110.
35. Kanninen B.J. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 28:1995;114-125.
36. Kemf, E., Santiapillai, C., 2000. Asian Elephants in the Wild: 2000 WWF Species Status Report. WWF-International, Gland, Switzerland.
37. Kotchen M.J. Environmental attitudes, motivation, and contingent valuation of non-use values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 32:2000;93-107.
38. Loomis J.B., Ekstrand E. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of Mexican spotted owl. Ecol. Econ. 27:1998;29-41.
39. Loomis J.B., Larson D.M. Total economic value of whale populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Mar. Resour. Econ. 9:1994;275-286.
40. Loomis J.B., White D. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 18:1996;197-206.
41. Loomis J.B., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K., Covich A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem service in an impaired river basin: result from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol. Econ. 33:2000;103-117.
42. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Zarembka P.C. Frontiers in Econometrics. 1974;105-142 Academic Press, New York.
43. Miller J.D., Lindsay B.E. Willingness to pay for a state for a gypsy moth control program in New Hampshire: a contingent valuation case study. J. Econ. Entomol. 86:1993;829-837.
44. Statistical Compendium on Environmental Statistics. 1998;Ministry of Forestry and Environmental Management, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
45. Mitchell, R., Carson, R., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. Washington, DC.
46. Nyhus P.J., Tilson R., Sumianto P. Crop riding elephants and conservation implication at way Cambers National Park, Sumatra. Indonesia. Oryx. 34:2000;262-274.
47. Pate J., Loomis J. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetland and salmon in California. Ecol. Econ. 20:1997;199-207.
48. Randall A., Ives B.C., Eastman C. Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic and environmental improvements. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1:1974;132-149.
49. Ready R.C., Buzby J.C., Hu D. Difference between continuous and discrete contingent valuation estimates. Land Econ. 72:1996;397-411.
50. Rollins K., Briggs H.C. III. Moral hazard, externalities, and compensation for crop damages from wildlife. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 31:1996;368-386.
51. Sellar C., Chavas J.P., Stoll J.R. Specification of the logistic model: the case of valuation of non-market goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 13:1986;382-390.
52. Stevens T., Echeverria J., Glass R., Hager T., More T. Measuring the existence value or wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show? Land Econ. 67:1991;390-400.
53. Stevens T.H., Benin S., Larson J.S. Public attitudes and economic values of wetland preservation in New England. Wetlands. 15:1995;226-231.
54. Tisdell C.A., Xiang Z. Protected areas, agricultural pest and economic damage: conflicts with elephants and pests in Yunnan. Environmentalist. 18:1998;109-118.
55. Land Use Planning In Sri Lanka. vol. 1:2001;Urban Development Authority, Sethsiripaya, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
56. Weerakoon, D.K., 1999. Ecology and Ranging Behaviour of Wild Elephants and Human-Elephant Conflict in Sri Lanka. Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka, (unpublished).
57. Welsh M.P., Poe G.L. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparison to multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 36:1998;170-185.
58. White P.C.L., Bennett A.C., Hayes E.J.V. The use of willingness to pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Rev. 31:2001;151-167.
59. Whitehead J.C. Ex-ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: implications for valuing a sea turtle protection programme. Appl. Econ. 24:1992;981-988.
60. Whitehead J.C. Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Econ. 78:2002;285-297.
61. Whittington D. Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries. World Dev. 26:1998;21-30.
62. Whittington D. Improving the performance of contingent valuation in developing countries. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22:2002;223-237.
63. Whittington D., Lauria D.T., Choe K., Hughes J.A., Swarna V., Wright A.M. Household sanitation in Kumasi, Chana: a description of current practices, attitudes, and perceptions. World Dev. 21:1993;733-748.
64. Witzer H.P., Urfei G. Willingness to pay for environmental protection in Germany: coping with the regional dimension. Reg. Stud. 35:2001;207-214.