Public Valuation of and Attitudes towards the Conservation and Use of the Hawksbill Turtle: An Australian Case Study
Managing hawksbill turtle populations for use and conservation requires (i) adequate scientific understanding of their population status and dynamics and (ii) consideration of the public’s attitudes to this species. This study employs experimental surveys to assess the Australian public’s attitudes towards the hawksbill turtle, their knowledge of it, their views about its sustainable commercial harvesting, and their support and financial contribution for the species’ conservation. Contingent valuation reveals that the Australian public’s willingness to contribute to the conservation of the hawksbill turtle is high even in comparison to threatened Australian bird and mammal fauna. Most of this stated contribution is based on the intrinsic (non-use) value associated with the hawksbill turtle. It seems that the Australian public will only accept its harvesting if the sustainability of this is assured and its population is more secure. The CITES categorisation of the hawksbill as an Appendix I species hampers the development of techniques for its sustainable use.
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.
| Length: | |
| Date of creation: | Jun 2005 |
| Handle: | RePEc:ags:uqseee:55066 |
| Contact details of provider: | Postal: St. Lucia, Qld. 4072 Phone: +61 7 3365 6570 Fax: +61 7 3365 7299 Web page: http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/index.html Email: More information through EDIRC
|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ian Bateman & Ian Langford & Naohito Nishikawa & Iain Lake, 2000. "The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 291-302.
- Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994.
"Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
- Trudy Ann Cameron & John Quiggin, 1992. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data From a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire," UCLA Economics Working Papers 653, UCLA Department of Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
- Jennifer Tkac, 1998. "The Effects of Information on Willingness-to-Pay Values of Endangered Species," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1214-1220.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uqseee:55066. 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: (AgEcon Search)
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.