IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eep/report/rr2010121.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Policy Options for Sustainable River Sand Mining in Sri Lanka

Author

Listed:
  • L H P Gunaratne

    (Department of Economics and Business Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya)

Abstract

Indiscriminate river sand mining, due to the recent boom in the construction industry in Sri Lanka, has created a number of environmental and social problems. Within this context, this study attempts to identify policy options for sustainable river sand mining that minimize environmental degradation while meeting the requirements of the construction industry and local people. The study followed four separate analyses: comparison of annual costs and the benefits of selected mining sites, analysis of miners’ views and preferences using choice modeling, evaluation of expert opinion using multi-criteria analysis, and a comparison of alternative sources of river sand. The comparison of the costs and benefits of sample mining sites revealed that the social cost of river sand mining exceeds the private costs; however, the fact that social benefits were still found to be non-negative at the study sites may be due to the under-reporting of environmental effects and the exclusion of off-site costs. It was observed that although the increased costs of restoration and other costs of overmining are borne by government institutions, government income has remained at a very low level. The results of the discrete choice experiment with the miners indicated that they believe the negative effects of sand mining can be partly mitigated by increasing government revenue towards an environmental trust fund (ETF) with some level of co-management. Strict rules, regulations and awareness programs, as suggested by the media and environment groups, were not found to be productive. Alternative policies for sustainable sand mining in three major rivers were ecologically, economically, socially and technically evaluated using multi-criteria analysis. The restriction of mining at vulnerable sites was found to be the best management alternative followed by the establishment of an ETF for the Ma Oya River, where there are more than 70 mining sites. Community-based management was found to be the best option for the Mahaweli and Deduru Oya rivers. Using off-shore sand was found to be the best way to decrease pressure on rivers for sand. However, at present, the price of off-shore sand is slightly higher than that of river sand and it is less popular because there is the possibility that shells and chlorides are present in it. Prices could be brought down further by expanding offshore sand mining operations because off-shore dredging is sensitive to economy of scale. This could be achieved by mandating the compulsory use of off-shore sand for large construction projects and landfilling, especially in Western Province.

Suggested Citation

  • L H P Gunaratne, 2010. "Policy Options for Sustainable River Sand Mining in Sri Lanka," EEPSEA Research Report rr2010121, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Dec 2010.
  • Handle: RePEc:eep:report:rr2010121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eepsea.org/pub/rr/2010-RR7-Guna.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    4. Gilbert, Alison J. & Janssen, Ron, 1998. "Use of environmental functions to communicate the values of a mangrove ecosystem under different management regimes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 323-346, June.
    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. 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.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    3. G. Concu, 2004. "Effects of distance on non-use values," Working Paper CRENoS 200411, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    4. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    5. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    6. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    7. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    8. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    9. Agimass, Fitalew & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2011. "Low-income fishermen's willingness-to-pay for fisheries and watershed management: An application of choice experiment to Lake Tana, Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 162-170.
    10. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    11. Caporale, Diana & De Lucia, Caterina, 2015. "Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1378-1390.
    12. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    13. Francisco J. Mas & Juan Luis Nicolau, 2004. "Stochastic Choice Analysis Of Tourism Destinations," Working Papers. Serie AD 2004-07, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    14. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2004. "A Choice Experiment Model For Beef Attributes: What Consumer Preferences Tell Us," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19931, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Sara Kaffashi & Mad Nasir Shamsudin & Alias Radam & Khalid Abdul Rahim & Mohd Rusli Yacob, 2013. "Non-users’ trade-off between natural scenery, water quality, ecological functions and biodiversity conservation: a way to preserve wetlands," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 251-260, June.
    16. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    17. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    18. Hoefkens, Christine & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Camp, John & Verbeke, Wim, 2012. "What nutrition label to use in a catering environment? A discrete choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 741-750.
    19. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    20. Traub, Lulama Ndibongo & Jayne, Thomas S., 2006. "Opportunities to Improve Household Food Security Through Promoting Informal Maize Marketing Channels: Experience from Eastern Cape Province, South Africa," Food Security International Development Working Papers 54568, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    environment; Sri Lanka;

    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:eep:report:rr2010121. 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: Arief Anshory yusuf (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eepsesg.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.