IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uqseee/163697.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Three Questionnaires Used in Evaluating the Economics of Conserving Australia's Tropical Wildlife Species and the Procedures Adopted

Author

Listed:
  • Tisdell, Clem
  • Wilson, Clevo

Abstract

Appendix II of this paper contains the three questionnaires which were used experimentally as a part of three surveys to assess the economics of conserving Australia’s tropical wildlife species. The body of this paper outlines the procedures used for the surveys, discusses response rates and the representativeness of the samples, and outlines the general coverage of the surveys/questionnaires. The surveys provided data about participants’ knowledge of each of the focal species, their support for the survival of each, their willingness to pay for the conservation of each and their attitudes to the commercial harvesting of each. The survey procedures enabled particular attention to be given to the influence on these variables of variations in the knowledge of survey participants about the species being evaluated. In addition, information was gathered about the attitudes of survey participants towards the use of wildlife species by Indigenous Australians (Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders).

Suggested Citation

  • Tisdell, Clem & Wilson, Clevo, 2014. "Three Questionnaires Used in Evaluating the Economics of Conserving Australia's Tropical Wildlife Species and the Procedures Adopted," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 163697, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uqseee:163697
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.163697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/163697/files/WP191.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.163697?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clement A. Tisdell, 2014. "Human Values and Biodiversity Conservation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15295.
    2. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    3. Karl C. Samples & John A. Dixon & KMarcia M. Gowen, 1986. "Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 306-312.
    4. Clem Tisdell, 2005. "Linking Policies For Biodiversity Conservation With Advances In Behavioral Economics," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 50(spec0), pages 449-462.
    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. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    2. Tisdell, Clem & Nantha, Hemanath Swarna & Wilson, Clevo, 2007. "Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 627-633, January.
    3. Alhassan, Mustapha & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Schoengold, Karina, 2017. "Effects of Information Framing on Smallholder Irrigation Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Groundwater Protection: The Case of Vea Irrigation Scheme in Ghana," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Comparative Public Support for Conserving Reptile Species is High: Australian Evidence and its Implications," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51412, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    5. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Jones, Michael John, 2010. "Accounting for the environment: Towards a theoretical perspective for environmental accounting and reporting," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 123-138.
    7. Clive L Spash, 2008. "Ecosystems Services Valuation," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-03, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Katuwal, Hari & Venn, Tyron J. & Paveglio, Travis & Prato, Tony, 2015. "Effects of Information Framing and Information Seeking Behavior on Willingness-to-pay for a Wildfire Management Program," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205645, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    11. repec:ken:wpaper:0603 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Pullis, Genevieve, 2012. "Does On-site Experience Affect Responses to Stated Preference Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124991, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    14. Young, Ralph, 1991. "The Economic Significance of Environmental Resources: A Review of the Evidence," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(03), pages 1-26, December.
    15. Hong, Liu & Tisdell, Clem & Fei, Wang, 2017. "Social Capital, Poverty and its Alleviation in a Chinese Border Region: A Case Study in the Kirghiz Prefecture, Xinjiang," Social Economics, Policy and Development Working Papers 263148, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    16. Tanya O�Garra & Susanna Mourato, 2013. "An Experimental Investigation of the Impacts of Persuasion and Information Acquisition on Non-Use Values for Climate Change Adaptation," GRI Working Papers 125, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    17. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    18. Upton, Vincent & Dhubháin, Áine Ní & Bullock, Craig, 2012. "Preferences and values for afforestation: The effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 17-27.
    19. Robert W. Kling & Charles F. Revier & Karin Sable, 2004. "Estimating the Public Good Value of Preserving a Local Historic Landmark: The Role of Non-substitutability and Citizen Information," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(10), pages 2025-2041, September.
    20. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    21. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uqseee:163697. 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/decuqau.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.