IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i10p2574-2579.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-benefit analysis of alien vegetation clearing for water yield and tourism in a mountain catchment in the Western Cape of South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Currie, Bianca
  • Milton, Suzanne J.
  • Steenkamp, J.C.

Abstract

Economic analysis is used to assess the costs and benefits of restoration following clearing of invasive alien trees in the floristically rich Fynbos mountainous area near Franschhoek, Western Cape of South Africa. The Groot Drakenstein, Franschhoek and Jonkershoek mountains receives more rainfall than the surrounding areas and is an important source of water for the city of Cape Town. The costs of alien invasive plant removal, gully-erosion repair and reseeding with indigenous plants are considered in a case-study cost-benefit analysis of restoration, in terms of the water and tourism benefits derived. Three different options of restoration (comprehensive, moderate, basic) were analysed under three different economic scenarios (optimistic, realistic, pessimistic) and the costs of which have been weighted up against the income derived from the supply of water and tourism. The results have shown that despite the high costs of restoration, the basic restoration option costs were out-weighed by the water and tourism benefits derived. This was also true of the moderate restoration option, when evaluated under the optimistic scenario and using an 8% discount rate, or a 3% discount rate under any scenario. However, this was not the case in the moderate restoration option when using an 8% discount rate in conjunction with the realistic and pessimistic scenarios. Neither was it the case when using a 12% discount rate, irrespective of the scenario. Under no scenario was the cost of a comprehensive restoration option outweighed by the benefits quantified, irrespective of the discount rate used. It was concluded that further restoration, in addition to the mere clearing of alien invasive plants, would be economically viable under certain assumptions and conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Currie, Bianca & Milton, Suzanne J. & Steenkamp, J.C., 2009. "Cost-benefit analysis of alien vegetation clearing for water yield and tourism in a mountain catchment in the Western Cape of South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2574-2579, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:10:p:2574-2579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(09)00135-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peacock, R. & Bently, M. & Rees, P. & Blignaut, J.N., 2023. "The benefits of ecological restoration exceed its cost in South Africa: An evidence-based approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    2. Boerema, Annelies & Schoelynck, Jonas & Bal, Kris & Vrebos, Dirk & Jacobs, Sander & Staes, Jan & Meire, Patrick, 2014. "Economic valuation of ecosystem services, a case study for aquatic vegetation removal in the Nete catchment (Belgium)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 46-56.
    3. Chisholm, Ryan A., 2010. "Trade-offs between ecosystem services: Water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1973-1987, August.
    4. Nkambule, N.P. & Blignaut, J.N. & Vundla, T. & Morokong, T. & Mudavanhu, S., 2017. "The benefits and costs of clearing invasive alien plants in northern Zululand, South Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 203-223.
    5. Priscilla Wainaina & Peter A. Minang & Eunice Gituku & Lalisa Duguma, 2020. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Landscape Restoration: A Stocktake," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-25, November.
    6. Richard J. Thomas & Emmanuelle Quillérou & Naomi Stewart, 2013. "The rewards of investing in sustainable land management," Working Papers hal-01954823, HAL.

    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:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:10:p:2574-2579. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.