IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v84y2012icp7-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The valuation of biodiversity conservation by the South African Khomani San “bushmen” community

Author

Listed:
  • Dikgang, Johane
  • Muchapondwa, Edwin

Abstract

The restitution of parkland to the Khomani San “bushmen” and Mier “agricultural” communities in May 2002 marked a significant shift in conservation in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and environs in South Africa. Biodiversity conservation will benefit from this land restitution only if the Khomani San, who interact with nature more than do other groups, are good environmental stewards. To assess their attitude toward biodiversity conservation, this study used the contingent valuation method to investigate the economic values the communities assign to biodiversity conservation under three land tenure arrangements in the Kgalagadi area. For each community and land tenure arrangement, there are winners and losers, but the winners benefit by more than the cost that losers suffer. The net worth for biodiversity conservation under the various land tenure regimes ranged from R928 to R3456 to R4160 for municipal land, parkland, and communal land respectively for the Khomani San, compared to R25600 to R57600 to R64000 for municipal land, parkland, and communal land respectively for the Mier.

Suggested Citation

  • Dikgang, Johane & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2012. "The valuation of biodiversity conservation by the South African Khomani San “bushmen” community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 7-14.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:84:y:2012:i:c:p:7-14
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091200359X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oral Capps & Randall A. Kramer, 1985. "Analysis of Food Stamp Participation Using Qualitative Choice Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(1), pages 49-59.
    2. Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-270, March.
    3. Shyamsundar, Priya & Kramer, Randall A., 1996. "Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-144, September.
    4. Edwin Muchapondwa & Fredrik Carlsson & Gunnar Köhlin, 2008. "Wildlife Management In Zimbabwe: Evidence From A Contingent Valuation Study," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 76(4), pages 685-704, December.
    5. Fay, Derick, 2009. "Land Tenure, Land Use, and Land Reform at Dwesa-Cwebe, South Africa: Local Transformations and the Limits of the State," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1424-1433, August.
    6. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Bengt Kriström & Fiona Watson, 2009. "Accounting for Negative, Zero and Positive Willingness to Pay for Landscape Change in a National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 1-16.
    7. Pamela Kaval & Richard Yao & Terry Parminter, 2007. "The Value of Native Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand: A Case Study of the Greater Wellington Area," Working Papers in Economics 07/22, University of Waikato.
    8. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Mekonnen, Alemu, 2000. "Valuation of community forestry in Ethiopia: a contingent valuation study of rural households," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(03), pages 289-308, July.
    10. Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-443, April.
    11. John M. Gowdy & Richard Howarth & Clem Tisdell, 2010. "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations," Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 1008, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics.
    12. J. R. Hicks, 1943. "The Four Consumer's Surpluses," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 31-41.
    13. K hlin, Gunnar, 2001. "Contingent valuation in project planning and evaluation: the case of social forestry in Orissa, India," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(02), pages 237-258, May.
    14. Peter Clough, 2000. "Encouraging Private Biodiversity - Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation on Private Land," Treasury Working Paper Series 00/25, New Zealand Treasury.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Thondhlana, Gladman & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2014. "Dependence on environmental resources and implications for household welfare: Evidence from the Kalahari drylands, South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 59-67.
    2. Johane Dikgang & Edwin Muchapondwa, 2016. "The Effect of Land Restitution on Poverty Reduction among the Khomani San “Bushmen” in South Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 84(1), pages 63-80, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Biodiversity; Contingent valuation; Khomani San; Land restitution;

    JEL classification:

    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:eee:ecolec:v:84:y:2012:i:c:p:7-14. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.