Cost-benefit analysis of alien vegetation clearing for water yield and tourism in a mountain catchment in the Western Cape of South Africa
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.