IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/33954.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The economic impact of the invasion of Acacia saligna in Israel

Author

Listed:
  • Lehrer, David
  • Becker, Nir
  • Bar, Pua

Abstract

This paper illustrates the use of alternative, non-market valuation methods to estimate the economic value of ecological damage caused by the invasive plant Acacia saligna. We discuss the motivation to perform an economic valuation for bio-invasion in general and then examine the costs and benefits of conservation management programmes that reduce the risk of A. saligna invasion at the Nizzanim Long-Term Ecosystem Research (LTER) nature reserve in Israel. The study found that the annual mean willingness to pay (WTP) for containment or eradication of A. saligna was US$8.41 and US$8.83, respectively. The value placed on conserving the nature reserve was then compared to the cost of containment or eradication of the species, enabling a standard economic benefit–cost analysis. The result of this analysis showed that, using the most conservative method of valuation of the nature reserve, eradication of A. saligna gave a net benefit.

Suggested Citation

  • Lehrer, David & Becker, Nir & Bar, Pua, 2010. "The economic impact of the invasion of Acacia saligna in Israel," MPRA Paper 33954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:33954
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/33954/8/MPRA_paper_33954.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate, 2005. "Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, July.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    4. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    5. Kristin Jakobsson & Andrew Dragun, 2001. "The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(3), pages 211-227, July.
    6. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
    7. B.W. van Wilgen & D.M. Richardson & D.C. Le Maitre & C. Marais & D. Magadlela, 2001. "The Economic Consequences of Alien Plant Invasions: Examples of Impacts and Approaches to Sustainable Management in South Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 145-168, June.
    8. Fleischer, Aliza & Sternberg, Marcelo, 2006. "The economic impact of global climate change on Mediterranean rangeland ecosystems: A Space-for-Time approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 287-295, September.
    9. Barkmann, J. & Glenk, K. & Keil, A. & Leemhuis, C. & Dietrich, N. & Gerold, G. & Marggraf, R., 2008. "Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-62, March.
    10. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    11. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    12. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    13. William Fonta & Hyacinth Ichoku & Kanayo Ogujiuba, 2010. "Estimating willingness to pay with the stochastic payment card design: further evidence from rural Cameroon," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 179-193, April.
    14. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    15. Kniivila, Matleena, 2006. "Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 530-539, October.
    16. Ram Shrestha & Janaki Alavalapati & Andrew Seidl & Karl Weber & Tri Suselo, 2007. "Estimating The Local Cost Of Protecting Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: A Contingent Valuation Approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 413-426, November.
    17. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1992. "The impact of grouping coarseness in alternative grouped-data regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 419-421, June.
    18. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    19. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    20. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, 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. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    8. Julia Martin‐Ortega & M. Azahara Mesa‐Jurado & Julio Berbel, 2015. "Revisiting the Impact of Order Effects on Sensitivity to Scope: A Contingent Valuation of a Common‐Pool Resource," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 705-726, September.
    9. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    10. Angella, Namyenya, 2014. "Farmers' Willingness to Pay for Irrigation Water: The Case of Doho Rice Irrigation Scheme in Eastern Uganda," Research Theses 243462, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    11. Nir Becker & Yael Choresh & Ofer Bahat & Moshe Inbar, 2010. "Cost benefit analysis of conservation efforts to preserve an endangered species: The Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Israel," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 55-70, April.
    12. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    13. Kemeze, Francis H., 2020. "Demand for Supplemental Irrigation via Small-Scale Water Harvesting," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304569, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    15. Dranco, Daniel & Luiselli, Luca, 2014. "How much do the common goods of rural and semi-natural landscape cost? A case study," MPRA Paper 66309, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2015.
    16. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    17. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    18. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    19. Stephanie Simpson & Brid Gleeson Hanna, 2010. "Willingness to pay for a clear night sky: use of the contingent valuation method," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(11), pages 1095-1103.
    20. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Acacia saligna; benefit–cost analysis; biodiversity; conservation planning; CVM; Mediterranean; non-market valuation; sand dunes;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:pra:mprapa:33954. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.