Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife-based marine tourism: Sea turtles and whales as case studies

Tourism development can have positive and/or negative impacts on wildlife. However, if tourism is developed in accordance with the basic tenets of wildlife tourism such an activity can be sustainable and can aid the conservation of species. Based on two case studies in Queensland, Australia, this article outlines the various economic and conservation benefits arising from wildlife-based tourism. Some of the benefits are direct, such as tangible economic benefits, others are less tangible, such as increased visitors’ willingness to pay in principle for the conservation of species. Wildlife-based tourism is shown to foster political support for the conservation of species utilized for such tourism by various mechanisms. Non-consumptive uses of wildlife are not only sustainable, but may provide a viable alternative to consumptive uses.

Ecotourism/Wildlife-based tourism as contributor to nature conservation with reference to Vanni, Sri Lanka

After discussing definitions of ecotourism, outlines possible economic and conservational benefits from developing ecotourism or wildlife-based tourism. Identifies possible economic benefits for local communities but also outlines possible economic costs to such communities. Observations are made on the potential of developing ecotourism in the Giant’s Tank/Mannar area. A sufficient market does not always exist for wildlife-based tourism to make it economically viable. Therefore, market analysis should be undertaken before promoting the development of wildlife-based tourism in a locality. A checklist is provided to give some guidance in market appraisal. It is observed that even non-consumptive wildlife-based tourism can have adverse environmental consequences and these are listed. Care is needed to avoid these negative consequences and to ensure that local communities do in fact obtain adequate economic benefits from the development of wildlife-based tourism.

Wildlife damage, insurance/compensation for farmers and conservation: Sri Lankan elephants as a case

The interference with agriculture has been recognised as the main cause for the current conflict between farmers and wild elephants in Sri Lanka, as elsewhere in the Asian elephant range. Thus compensating farmers for the damages caused by elephants is essential, if this endangered species is to survive in the long run. This paper explores the practicality of establishing an improved publicly funded insurance/compensation scheme to recompense farmers for the elephant damages. It does so by analysing results from two contingent valuation surveys undertaken in Sri Lanka. We find that possible public support of farmers plus urban dwellers significantly exceeds the financial requirement of the insurance scheme proposed in this study for perpetuity. The article also shows that it is often inappropriate from an economic viewpoint to analyse crop insurance as if it only involves the insurance of a private good because important positive externalities can arise from ‘crop’ damages by wildlife, e.g. elephants. The use of agricultural land by some species is essential for their long-term survival and this is often positively valued by the community as a whole.

Property rights of landholders in non-captive wildlife and prospects for conservation

In order to reduce the rate of human-induced biodiversity loss of wild species, it has become increasingly important to stem this loss on private and tribal lands and to find effective policies to do this. Some writers believe that granting landholders commercial property rights in wildlife might be effective in dealing with this matter and result in the sustainable use of wildlife. This paper explores this view using economic theory. In doing so, it takes into account the total economic valuation concept. While granting of commercial property rights is found to be effective for conserving some species, it is predicted to be a complete failure as a means of conserving other species. In addition, particular attention is given to the economics of the utilisation and conservation of non-captive fugitive (or mobile) wildlife. The economic theory involved is contrasted and compared with that for the exploitation of open-access resources.

Economics of wildlife tourism

After introducing the importance of the topic, we examine the economic impacts of wildlife tourism on income and employment as an indicator of the importance of this form of tourism. While such indicators can be important politically and to particular interest groups, they are shown to be an inadequate guide to the economic use and conservation of resources, including wildlife used in tourism. One reason for this (amongst others) is that total economic value must be taken into account in determining economic resource use and this is shown to be quite important in the case of wildlife species. Empirical procedures, such as use of the travel cost method and stated preference methods (for example, contingent valuation) are outlined and the way in which they can be used for determining the optimal economic allocation of land and other resources for wildlife tourism is explained. Economic implications and limitations of some empirical estimates of the importance of wildlife tourism are discussed. This leads on to a consideration of the purpose and usefulness of using economic instruments to manage wildlife tourism.

Influences on knowledge of wildlife species on patterns of willingness to pay for their conservation

Examines the influence of respondents’ knowledge of wildlife species on their willingness to pay for conservation of the individual species. It does so by using data generated by surveys of 204 individuals who participated in a structured experiment in which their knowledge of a selected set of wildlife species was increased. The species selected were Australian ones, mostly but not entirely, tropical ones. The species were divided into three taxa for the experiment; reptiles, mammals and birds. Each set of species in the taxa included some species expected to be poorly known initially and some anticipated to be well known. Respondents rated their knowledge of each species on a Likert scale, and changes in their average allocation of funds for the conservation of each species were examined as their knowledge increased. Some general relationships are observed.

Economic Incentives to Conserve Wildlife on Private Lands: Analysis and Policy

Some believe that provision of private property rights in wildlife on private land can provide a powerful economic incentive for nature conservation because it enables property owners to market such wildlife or its attributes. If such marketing is profitable, private landholders will conserve the wildlife concerned and its required habitat. But land is not always most profitably used for exploitation of wildlife, and many economic values of wildlife (such as non-use economic values) cannot be marketed. The mobility of some wildlife (their fugitive nature) adds to the limitations of the private property approach. While some species may be conserved by this approach, it is suboptimal as a single policy approach to nature conservation. Nevertheless, it is being experimented with in the Northern Territory of Australia where landholders have the possibility of harvesting on their properties a quota of eggs and chicks of red-tailed black cockatoos for commercial sale. This scheme is expected to provide an incentive to private landholders to retain hollow trees essential for the nesting of these birds. Aspects of this approach are analysed using this case, and related ones, from Northern Australia. It is noted that the private property rights approach adopted in southern Africa is unlikely to be equally successful everywhere. The long-term survival of some species depends on their ability to use private lands without severe harassment, either for their migration or to supplement their available resources, for example, the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka. Nature conservation on private land is often a useful, if not essential, supplement to conservation on public lands. Community and public incentives for such conservation are outlined.