IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uqseee/51408.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Australian Tropical Reptile Species: Ecological Status, Public Valuation and Attitudes to their Conservation and Commercial Use

Author

Listed:
  • Tisdell, Clement A.
  • Wilson, Clevo
  • Swarna Nantha, Hemanath

Abstract

Five species of reptiles present in tropical Australia are considered in this study. These are the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); the northern long-necked turtle (Chelodina rugosa); the taipan snake (Oxyuranus scutellatus); the freshwater crocodile (Crocodylus johnstoni); and the saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus). Background information is provided on the ecological status of each of these species and after outlining their human use (including commercial use) and management in Australia, an experimental survey method is introduced and results from its application are reported and analysed. The survey method involves two serial surveys of a sample of 204 Brisbane (Australia) residents. The first survey is based on the initial knowledge of the respondents of the reptile species and for the subsequent survey the knowledge available to participants about these species is experimentally increased. These surveys provide information on the amount of knowledge possessed by this sample of the public about the relevant reptile species, the respondents’ attitudes to these species (including their attitudes to commercial use), respondents’ support for the survival of these reptiles and for their conservation. Furthermore, data is gathered from the surveys on the comparative amount respondents’ state they would be prepared to contribute to support the conservation of each of these focal reptile species. Respondents are asked to assume that they are given $1,000 and that this can only be allocated to the conservation of these reptiles. Later, however, they are also given the option to donate this money to any charity concerned with human welfare. The contingent valuation data for each of the reptile species are used to isolate factors that influence the comparative allocation of conservation funds to each of the relevant reptile species. Factors considered include the extent of the respondents’ knowledge of the species, the stated degree to which respondents’ reported that they liked or disliked the species, and ethical views of the respondents. Implications of the findings for the theory of economic valuation of wildlife species and for of the focal reptile species in Australia are discussed in concluding this chapter.

Suggested Citation

  • Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Australian Tropical Reptile Species: Ecological Status, Public Valuation and Attitudes to their Conservation and Commercial Use," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51408, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uqseee:51408
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.51408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/51408/files/WP106.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.51408?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. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1996. "Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-16.
    2. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 21-34, Summer.
    3. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo, 2004. "Information and Wildlife Valuation: Experiments and Policy," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51409, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    4. Anne Meylan, 1998. "Hawksbill turtles still endangered," Nature, Nature, vol. 391(6663), pages 117-117, January.
    5. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    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. Svizzero, Serge & Tisdell, Clem, 2014. "The Neolithic Revolution and Human Societies: Diverse Origins and Development Paths," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 168375, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    2. Serge Svizzero & Clement Allan Tisdell, 2014. "Hunter-Gatherer Societies: Their Diversity and Evolutionary Processes," Working Papers hal-02152682, HAL.
    3. Tisdell, Clement A. & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Management, Conservation and Farming of Saltwater Crocodiles: An Australian Case Study of Sustainable Commercial Use," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55068, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    4. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo, 2004. "Information and Wildlife Valuation: Experiments and Policy," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51409, University of Queensland, School of Economics.

    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. 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.
    2. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Dependence of public support for survival of wildlife species on their likeability," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51413, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Public Support for Sustainable Commercial Harvesting of Wildlife: An Australian Case Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51418, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    5. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    6. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo, 2004. "Information and Wildlife Valuation: Experiments and Policy," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51409, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    7. Alejandro M. Bellon, 2019. "Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(3), pages 399-411, July.
    8. Ariane Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2015. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 729-744.
    9. Perry, Neil, 2010. "The ecological importance of species and the Noah's Ark problem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 478-485, January.
    10. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    11. Fadlaoui, Aziz & Roosen, Jutta & Baret, Philippe V., 2005. "Of Experts, Politicians and Beasts: Setting Priorities in Farm Animal Conservation Choices," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24546, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Baumgartner, Stefan & Becker, Christian & Faber, Malte & Manstetten, Reiner, 2006. "Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 487-498, October.
    13. Subroy, Vandana & Gunawardena, Asha & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Pannell, David J., 2019. "The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    14. David N. Laband & Michael Nieswiadomy, 2006. "Factors Affecting Species' Risk Of Extinction: An Empirical Analysis Of Esa And Natureserve Listings," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 160-171, January.
    15. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Public Choice of Species for the Ark: Phylogenetic Similarity and Preferred Wildlife Species for Survival," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 54349, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    16. Dyar, Julie A. & Wagner, Jeffrey, 2003. "Uncertainty and species recovery program design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 505-522, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Ando, Amy Whritenour, 2001. "Economies of Scope in Endangered-Species Protection: Evidence from Interest-Group Behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 312-332, May.
    19. Langpap, Christian & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2002. "Success Or Failure? Ordered Probit Approaches To Measuring The Effectiveness Of The Endangered Species Act," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19713, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. List, John A & Bulte, Erwin H & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. ""Beggar Thy Neighbor": Testing for Free Riding in State-Level Endangered Species Expenditures," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 111(3-4), pages 303-315, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:51408. 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.