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.

Testing for Market Power in Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output Industries: The Australian Grains and Oilseeds Industries

Recent empirical studies have found significant evidence of departures from competition in the input side of the Australian bread, breakfast cereal and margarine end-product markets. For example, Griffith (2000) found that firms in some parts of the processing and marketing sector exerted market power when purchasing grains and oilseeds from farmers. As noted at the time, this result accorded well with the views of previous regulatory authorities (p.358). In the mid-1990s, the Prices Surveillence Authority (PSA 1994) determined that the markets for products contained in the Breakfast Cereals and Cooking Oils and Fats indexes were "not effectively competitive" (p.14). The PSA consequently maintained price surveillence on the major firms in this product group. The Griffith result is also consistent with the large number of legal judgements against firms in this sector over the past decade for price fixing or other types of non-competitive behaviour. For example, bread manufacturer George Weston was fined twice during 2000 for non-competitive conduct and the ACCC has also recently pursued and won cases against retailer Safeway in grains and oilseeds product lines.

Linking policies for biodiversity conservation with advances in behavioural economics

Global biodiversity loss and its consequences for human welfare and sustainable development have become major concerns. Economists have, therefore, given increasing attention to the policy issues involved in the management of genetic resources. To do so, they often apply empirical methods developed in behavioral and experimental economics to estimate economic values placed on genetic resources. This trend away from almost exclusive dependence on axiomatic methods is welcomed. However, major valuation methods used in behavioral economics raise new scientific challenges. Possibly the most important of these include deficiencies in the knowledge of the public (and researchers) about genetic resources, implications for the formation of values of supplying information to focal individuals, and limits to rationality. These issues are explored for stated-preference techniques of valuation (e.g., contingent valuation) as well as revealed preference techniques, especially the travel cost method. They are illustrated by Australian and Asian examples. Taking into account behavioral and psychological models and empirical evidence, particular attention is given to how elicitation of preferences, and supply of information to individuals, influences their preferences about biodiversity. Policy consequences are outlined.