IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uqseee/55066.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Valuation of and Attitudes towards the Conservation and Use of the Hawksbill Turtle: An Australian Case Study

Author

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

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Tisdell, Clement A. & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath & Wilson, Clevo, 2005. "Public Valuation of and Attitudes towards the Conservation and Use of the Hawksbill Turtle: An Australian Case Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55066, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uqseee:55066
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.55066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/55066/files/WP124.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.55066?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. 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.
    2. Clement A. Tisdell, 2005. "Economics of Environmental Conservation, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3272, December.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639, December.
    9. Anne Meylan, 1998. "Hawksbill turtles still endangered," Nature, Nature, vol. 391(6663), pages 117-117, 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. Baulcomb, Corinne & Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne, 2014. "A Review of the Marine Economic Valuation Literature 1975 – 2011: Classifying Existing Studies by Service Type, Value Type, and Valuation Methodology," Working Papers 190935, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.

    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. & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Comparison of Funding and Demand for the Conservation of the Charismatic Koala with those for the Critically Endangered Wombat Lasiorhinus krefftii," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55067, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    2. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    3. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. Sorada Tapsuwan & Michael Burton & James Perriam, 2010. "A Multivariate Probit Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Cave Conservation: A Case Study of Yanchep National Park, Western Australia," Tourism Economics, , vol. 16(4), pages 1019-1035, December.
    6. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    7. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    8. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    9. Soliño, Mario & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2009. "Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: Does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 531-540, February.
    10. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    11. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    15. 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.
    16. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    17. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    18. van Soest, Arthur & Hurd, Michael, 2008. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 126-136, March.
    19. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2005. "Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Cornflakes, and Salmon: Evidence from a U.S. Telephone Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Clive L Spash, 2008. "Ecosystems Services Valuation," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-03, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:55066. 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.