IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v154y2018icp306-316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structuring Legal Trade in Rhino Horn to Incentivize the Participation of South African Private Landowners

Author

Listed:
  • Rubino, Elena C.
  • Pienaar, Elizabeth F.
  • Soto, José R.

Abstract

There is contentious debate in the literature regarding the conservation efficacy of the international rhinoceros horn trade ban. Because the ban has been in effect for 40 years, it is unclear how potential legal horn trade should be structured to attain rhino conservation on private lands. We sought to fill this gap by eliciting the preferences of South African private wildlife industry members (who conserve a third of South Africa's rhinoceroses) for international trade in rhino horn. We used a combination of best-worst scaling and dichotomous choice experiments to determine wildlife industry members' preferences for three features of legal trade: market structure; payment/kg horn; and whether landowners should be required to conserve a minimum amount of land per rhino before they may enter the market. Results indicate that respondents preferred payments of at least ZAR 150,000/kg (USD $11,500) and that legal trade not be regulated by government organizations. Respondents did not have clear preferences about whether market participants should be required to meet a minimum land requirement per rhino. Our results provide insights into how potential horn trade policy may be structured to meet the financial needs of private landowners, while securing the conservation of rhinos on private lands.

Suggested Citation

  • Rubino, Elena C. & Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R., 2018. "Structuring Legal Trade in Rhino Horn to Incentivize the Participation of South African Private Landowners," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 306-316.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:154:y:2018:i:c:p:306-316
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918301800
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.012?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    2. Douglas J. Crookes & James N. Blignaut, 2015. "Debunking the Myth that a Legal Trade will Solve the Rhino Horn Crisis: A System Dynamics Model for Market Demand," Working Papers 201533, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    3. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    4. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    5. Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Jarvis, Lovell S. & Larson, Douglas M., 2014. "Using a choice experiment framework to value conservation-contingent development programs: An application to Botswana," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 39-48.
    6. Lusk, Jayson L. & Parker, Natalie, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Amount and Type of Fat in Ground Beef," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(1), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    8. Lee, Deborah E. & Du Preez, Mario, 2016. "Determining visitor preferences for rhinoceros conservation management at private, ecotourism game reserves in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: A choice modeling experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 106-116.
    9. Philippe Rivalan & Virginie Delmas & Elena Angulo & Leigh S. Bull & Richard J. Hall & Franck Courchamp & Alison M. Rosser & Nigel Leader-Williams, 2007. "Can bans stimulate wildlife trade?," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7144), pages 529-530, May.
    10. Fiona M Underwood & Robert W Burn & Tom Milliken, 2013. "Dissecting the Illegal Ivory Trade: An Analysis of Ivory Seizures Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-12, October.
    11. Timothy C Haas & Sam M Ferreira, 2016. "Combating Rhino Horn Trafficking: The Need to Disrupt Criminal Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-26, November.
    12. Zhao Liu & Zhigang Jiang & Hongxia Fang & Chunwang Li & Aizi Mi & Jing Chen & Xiaowei Zhang & Shaopeng Cui & Daiqiang Chen & Xiaoge Ping & Feng Li & Chunlin Li & Songhua Tang & Zhenhua Luo & Yan Zeng , 2016. "Perception, Price and Preference: Consumption and Protection of Wild Animals Used in Traditional Medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Patrick Biernacki & Dan Waldorf, 1981. "Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 10(2), pages 141-163, November.
    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. Alan Collins & Caroline Cox & Juniours Marire, 2020. "On the judicial annulment of the ‘domestic’ trade moratorium in South African rhinoceros horn: a law and economics perspective," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 361-372, June.
    2. Dang Vu, Hoai Nam & Nielsen, Martin Reinhardt & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2022. "Conserving rhinos by legal trade: Insights from a choice experiment with rhino horn consumers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Xuan, Bui Bich & Ngoc, Quach Thi Khanh & Börger, Tobias, 2022. "Fisher preferences for marine litter interventions in Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).

    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. Soto, José & Escobedo, Francisco & Adams, Damian, 2016. "Public and Private Preferences for Urban Forest Ecosystem Services," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236232, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    3. Soto, Jose R. & Adams, Damian C., 2012. "Estimating the Supply of Forest Carbon Offsets: A Comparison of Best- Worst and Discrete Choice Valuation Methods," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124830, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    5. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Soto, José R., 2016. "Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-131.
    7. Graves, Rose A. & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Haugo, Ryan D. & Holz, Andrés, 2022. "Forest carbon incentive programs for non-industrial private forests in Oregon (USA): Impacts of program design on willingness to enroll and landscape-scale program outcomes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    8. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    9. Simone Mueller & Larry Lockshin & Jordan Louviere, 2010. "What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 335-350, December.
    10. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    11. Mishra, Bijesh, 2022. "Economics and human dimension of active management of forest-grassland ecotone in South-central USA under changing climate," MPRA Paper 116200, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jul 2022.
    12. Alisa E White & David A Lutz & Richard B Howarth & José R Soto, 2018. "Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    13. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    14. Harvey, Ross & Alden, Chris & Wu, Yu-Shan, 2017. "Speculating a Fire Sale: Options for Chinese Authorities in Implementing a Domestic Ivory Trade Ban," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 22-31.
    15. 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).
    16. Siqing Shan & Xijie Ju & Yigang Wei & Xin Wen, 2022. "Concerned or Apathetic? Using Social Media Platform (Twitter) to Gauge the Public Awareness about Wildlife Conservation: A Case Study of the Illegal Rhino Trade," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-21, June.
    17. Sackett, Hillary M. & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2013. "Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 275-290, August.
    18. Scarpa, Riccardo & Notaro, Sandra & Raffaelli, Roberta & Louviere, Jordan, 2011. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in best-worst rank ordered choice data to estimate tourism benefits from Alpine pasture heritage," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115990, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2015. "Similarities and Differences of Animal Welfare Perceptions between U.S. Cow-Calf Producers and the Public," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205433, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Sydney Oluoch & Pankaj Lal & Andres Susaeta & Meghann Smith & Bernabas Wolde, 2024. "Consumer Preferences for Wood-Pellet-Based Green Pricing Programs in the Eastern United States," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-16, April.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:154:y:2018:i:c:p:306-316. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.