IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iwmicp/211312.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Non-user benefits emanating from enhanced water flow to the Yala Protected Area Complex

Author

Listed:
  • Weligamage, Parakrama
  • Butcher, W. R.
  • Blatner, K. A.
  • Shumway, C. R.
  • Giordano, Mark

Abstract

Water is a multiple use resource. Increasing scarcity and competition from various sectors is an important dimension to be considered in its management. Understanding the value of water to different water uses is, therefore, necessary to assist decision-making in water allocation among sectors. Although water used in agriculture can be valued using production function approaches, such direct valuation methods are not available for the environmental uses of water. This paper uses non-market valuation methods to estimate the economic value of a committed flow through a unique ecosystem, the Yala Protected Area Complex (YPC). The Yala Protected Area Complex is an important wildlife refuge situated in south-eastern Sri Lanka. Its large land extent, undisturbed nature, and abundance and diversity of fauna contribute to its uniqueness. The fact that the YPC is also the most visited national park in Sri Lanka is partially a result of this uniqueness. However, maintenance of the park’s ecosystem depends on the flow of the Menik Ganga. This flow is regulated by the Veheragala Reservoir Project, and there is now discussion of reducing flow into the park by about half of the current level. The proposed plan ensures dry season flow into the YPC and, therefore, has been deemed acceptable. However, there is a possibility that farmers will demand further water releases during the dry season which could in turn endanger the planned downstream water releases. So there is a potential trade-off between environmental and irrigation uses of water. A willingness to pay (WTP) survey was conducted in ten districts in Sri Lanka during the fourth quarter of 2008 to estimate the WTP of the general population of the country towards maintaining this important environmental resource. In the hypothetical market presented, participants were told of the need for financial contributions from the general public to ensure the release of a minimum downstream flow commitment of 50 MCM. Participants were also informed of how this flow would enhance the ecosystem of the YPC. A single bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation approach was used as the elicitation format. Nonobligatory voluntary contributions were solicited towards a trust fund that could be used to ensure release of the required quantity of water downstream during dry months. According to the results of a binary logistic regression, income, age, and religious attachments are important factors affecting the decision to contribute to environmental flow maintenance to the YPC. Sixty-five percent of respondents were willing to pay something to ensure the maintenance of an adequate environmental flow in the YPC. The estimated mean WTP for water releases to enhance the YPC is Sri Lankan Rupees (SLR) 435 per year. Over the requested payment horizon of 10 years, the present value of aggregate WTP from the Sri Lankan population to enhance the ecosystem of the YPC is SLR 12 billion. This quantity greatly surpasses the present value of net benefits from rice farming estimated at SLR 0.64 billion, which would be generated if the same quantity of water was used for irrigation for 10 years (assuming current prices and input intensities). Thus, there is a clear opportunity for national welfare gain by ensuring adequate flow in YPC.

Suggested Citation

  • Weligamage, Parakrama & Butcher, W. R. & Blatner, K. A. & Shumway, C. R. & Giordano, Mark, 2010. "Non-user benefits emanating from enhanced water flow to the Yala Protected Area Complex," IWMI Conference Proceedings 211312, International Water Management Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iwmicp:211312
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.211312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/211312/files/H042857.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.211312?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theesfeld, Insa, 2004. "Constraints on Collective Action in a Transitional Economy: The Case of Bulgaria's Irrigation Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-271, February.
    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. Lorenz Gollwitzer & David Ockwell & Adrian Ely, 2015. "Institutional Innovation in the Management of Pro-Poor Energy Access in East Africa," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-29, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Petrick, M., 2007. "Why and how should the government finance public goods in rural areas? A review of arguments," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 42, March.
    3. Gorton, Matthew & Sauer, Johannes & Peshevski, Mile & Bosev, Dane & Shekerinov, Darko & Quarrie, Steve, 2009. "Water Communities in the Republic of Macedonia: An Empirical Analysis of Membership Satisfaction and Payment Behavior," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 1951-1963, December.
    4. Soumya Balasubramanya & Joseph P. G. Price & Theodore M. Horbulyk, 2018. "Impacts Assessments without True Baselines: Assessing the Relative Effects of Training on the Performance of Water User Associations in Southern Tajikistan," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-28, July.
    5. Otto, Ilona M. & Wechsung, Frank, 2014. "The effects of rules and communication in a behavioral irrigation experiment with power asymmetries carried out in North China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 10-20.
    6. Sauer, Johannes & Gorton, Matthew & Peshevski, Mile & Bosev, Dane & Shekerinov, Darko, 2010. "Social Capital and the Performance of Water User Associations: Evidence from the Republic of Macedonia," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 59(1).
    7. Petrick, Martin, 2006. "Should the Government Finance Public Goods in Rural Areas? A Review of Arguments," Staff Papers 12594, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    8. Schusser, Carsten & Krott, Max & Yufanyi Movuh, Mbolo C. & Logmani, Jacqueline & Devkota, Rosan R. & Maryudi, Ahamad & Salla, Manjola & Bach, Ngo Duy, 2015. "Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry — Results of an international study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 92-101.
    9. Petrick, Martin & Gramzow, Andreas, 2012. "Harnessing Communities, Markets and the State for Public Goods Provision: Evidence from Post-Socialist Rural Poland," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(11), pages 2342-2354.
    10. Theesfeld Insa & Klümper Frederike, 2016. "Interplay between structural change in Central Asian agriculture and institutional scarcity of land and water: evidence from Tajikistan," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 60(1-2), pages 81-96, June.
    11. Neumann, Kathleen & Stehfest, Elke & Verburg, Peter H. & Siebert, Stefan & Müller, Christoph & Veldkamp, Tom, 2011. "Exploring global irrigation patterns: A multilevel modelling approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(9), pages 703-713.
    12. Sauer, Johannes & Gorton, Matthew & Peshevski, Mile & Bosev, Dane & Shekerinov, Darko, 2010. "Social Capital and the Performance of Water User Associations: Evidence from the Republic of Macedonia," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 59(01), pages 1-10, March.
    13. Achim Schlüter & Insa Theesfeld, 2010. "The grammar of institutions: The challenge of distinguishing between strategies, norms, and rules," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(4), pages 445-475, November.
    14. Sirak Robele Gari & Alice Newton & John D. Icely & Maria Mar Delgado-Serrano, 2017. "An Analysis of the Global Applicability of Ostrom’s Design Principles to Diagnose the Functionality of Common-Pool Resource Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    15. Liangzhen Zang & Yahua Wang & Yiqing Su, 2021. "Does Farmland Scale Management Promote Rural Collective Action? An Empirical Study of Canal Irrigation Systems in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, November.
    16. Murray, Catherine, 2005. "Social Capital and Cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe: A Theoretical Perspective," Institutional Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources Discussion Papers 18831, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    17. JunNa Liu & XiaoLing Wang & YunZhang Hou, 2022. "The Impact of Village Cadres’ Public Service Motivation on the Effectiveness of Rural Living Environment Governance: An Empirical Study of 118 Chinese Villages," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, February.
    18. Kebede, Bereket & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2015. "Social Preferences and Agricultural Innovation: An Experimental Case Study from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 267-280.
    19. Hanaček, Ksenija & Langemeyer, Johannes & Bileva, Tatyana & Rodríguez-Labajos, Beatriz, 2021. "Understanding environmental conflicts through cultural ecosystem services - the case of agroecosystems in Bulgaria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    20. Tai, Hsing-Sheng, 2007. "Development Through Conservation: An Institutional Analysis of Indigenous Community-Based Conservation in Taiwan," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1186-1203, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Farm Management;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:iwmicp:211312. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwmiclk.html .

    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.