IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sajeco/v76y2008i4p685-704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wildlife Management In Zimbabwe: Evidence From A Contingent Valuation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Edwin Muchapondwa
  • Fredrik Carlsson
  • Gunnar Köhlin

Abstract

If communities living adjacent to the elephant see it as a burden, then they cannot be its stewards. To assess their valuation of it, a contingent valuation method study was conducted for one CAMPFIRE district in Zimbabwe. Respondents were classified according to their preferences over the elephant. The median willingness to pay for the preservation of 200 elephants is ZW$260 (US$4.73) for respondents who considered the elephant a public good and ZW$137 (US$2.49) for those favouring its translocation. The preservation of 200 elephants yields an annual net worth of ZW$10,828 (US$196) to CAMPFIRE households. However, the majority of households (62%) do not support elephant preservation. This is one argument against devolution of elephant conservation. External transfers constitute one way of providing additional economic incentives to local communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Edwin Muchapondwa & Fredrik Carlsson & Gunnar Köhlin, 2008. "Wildlife Management In Zimbabwe: Evidence From A Contingent Valuation Study," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 76(4), pages 685-704, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sajeco:v:76:y:2008:i:4:p:685-704
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1813-6982.2008.00182.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1813-6982.2008.00182.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1813-6982.2008.00182.x?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. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    2. Köhlin, Gunnar, 2001. "Contingent valuation in project planning and evaluation: the case of social forestry in Orissa, India," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 237-258, May.
    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. Ntuli, Herbert & Muchapondwa, Edwin & Okumu, Boscow, 2020. "Can local communities afford full control over wildlife conservation? The case of Zimbabwe," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    2. Dikgang, Johane & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2012. "The valuation of biodiversity conservation by the South African Khomani San “bushmen” community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 7-14.
    3. Dikgang, Johane & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2012. "The Valuation of Biodiversity Conservation by the South African Khomani San “Bushmen†Community," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-10-efd, Resources for the Future.
    4. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2023. "Limited substitutability, relative price changes and the uplifting of public natural capital values," Papers 2308.04400, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    5. Melville Saayman & Andrea Saayman, 2014. "Who is Willing to Pay to See the Big 7?," Tourism Economics, , vol. 20(6), pages 1181-1198, December.

    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. Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John B. & Nahuelhual, Laura, 2004. "A comparison of a parametric and a non-parametric method to value a non-rejectable public good," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 61-74, September.
    2. Mariana Conte Grand & Martina Chidiak, 2010. "Cambios potenciales en los usos recreativos de la costa del río Uruguay ante la instalación de la planta de celulosa Fray Bentos: un ejercicio de valoración contingente," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 432, Universidad del CEMA.
    3. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    4. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    5. Carlos E. Carpio, & Octavio A. Ramirez, & Tullaya Boonsaeng, 2011. "Potential for Tradable Water Allocation and Rights in Jordan," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(4), pages 595-609.
    6. Mark Morrison & Christine M Hill, 2017. "Understanding the Non-Market Value and Equity Implications of the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct Redevelopment," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(301), pages 302-313, June.
    7. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers 10503, Resources for the Future.
    8. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Andrea M. Leiter & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Dying in an Avalanche: Current Risks and Valuation," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2005-16, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    10. Ahuja, Vinod & McConnell, Kenneth E. & Umali-Deininger, Dina & de Haan, Cornelis, 2003. "Are the Poor Willing to Pay for Livestock Services? Evidence from Rural India," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 58(1), March.
    11. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, "undated". "A Simple Method for Bounding Willingness to Pay Using a Probit or Logit Model," Working Papers 9713, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    12. John C. Whitehead, 2017. "Who Knows What Willingness to Pay Lurks in the Hearts of Men? A Rejoinder to Egan, Corrigan, and Dwyer," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 14(3), pages 346–361-3, September.
    13. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    14. Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "Rethinking new wines: implications of local and environmentally friendly labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 547-560.
    15. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    16. 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.
    17. Sergio Ardila & Ricardo Quiroga & William J. Vaughan, 1998. "A Review of the Use of Contingent Valuation Methods in Project Analysis at the Inter-American Development Bank," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 33298, Inter-American Development Bank.
    18. Egan, Kevin J. & Corrigan, Jay R. & Dwyer, Daryl F., 2018. "Reply to “a comment on ‘three reasons to use annual payments in contingent valuation’”," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 489-495.
    19. Petter Gudding & Gorm Kipperberg & Craig Bond & Kelly Cullen & Eric Steltzer, 2018. "When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "They doth protest too much, methinks: Reply to “Reply to Whitehead”," Working Papers 24-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    More about this item

    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:bla:sajeco:v:76:y:2008:i:4:p:685-704. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essaaea.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.