IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v224y2024ics0921800924001976.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are farmers willing to accept compensation from tourism revenue for elephant crop damage and coexistence support? Evidence from Sri Lanka

Author

Listed:
  • Suresh, Kanesh
  • Wilson, Clevo
  • Quayle, Annette
  • Managi, Shunsuke
  • Khanal, Uttam

Abstract

In many regions of the world the incidence of human-wildlife conflict is increasing. This problem is made more complex in countries where wildlife are a key tourist attraction. For example, while subsistence farmers' crops can be destroyed by elephants, they are at the same time an important tourist drawcard. This study of human-wildlife conflict in Sri Lanka explores this issue and proposes as a solution a compensation scheme for farmers funded from revenue raised from tourism revenue and/or a tourism levy such as an embarkation tax. To ascertain the viability of this proposal we investigate affected farmers' willingness to accept compensation for elephant-related crop damage thereby providing an economic means for coexistence. The scheme proposed was tested by undertaking a discrete choice experiment involving 439 affected farm households. The modelling results show that farmers perceive an increased disutility from elephants visiting their farmland. However, they are willing to accept an average compensation of US$295 per acre when the entire crop is destroyed. The modelling exhibits preference heterogeneity: farmers' education, gender, tourism opportunities and membership in environmental clubs significantly influence their preference to coexist with human-elephant conflict (HEC). In particular, the interactions between ‘crop switching and education’ and ‘crop switching and gender’ reveal that better educated and male farmers are more inclined to adapt by changing crops on their farmlands compared to their less educated and female counterparts. Furthermore, farmers who prioritize tourism opportunities and those affiliated with environmental clubs are more open to coexistence, as they are willing to accommodate a greater number of elephants visiting their farmland compared to their counterparts. The key outcome of this study is that tourism has the potential to contribute to and form the basis for resolving HEC.

Suggested Citation

  • Suresh, Kanesh & Wilson, Clevo & Quayle, Annette & Managi, Shunsuke & Khanal, Uttam, 2024. "Are farmers willing to accept compensation from tourism revenue for elephant crop damage and coexistence support? Evidence from Sri Lanka," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:224:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924001976
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924001976
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108300?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. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    2. McFadden, Daniel L., 1984. "Econometric analysis of qualitative response models," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 24, pages 1395-1457, Elsevier.
    3. Chidakel, Alexander & Child, Brian & Muyengwa, Shylock, 2021. "Evaluating the economics of park-tourism from the ground-up: Leakage, multiplier effects, and the enabling environment at South Luangwa National Park, Zambia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    4. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    5. The Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota, 2018. "The Food Industry Center 2018 Annual Report," Annual Reports 280379, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    6. Nickerson, Norma Polovitz & Jorgenson, Jake & Boley, B. Bynum, 2016. "Are sustainable tourists a higher spending market?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 170-177.
    7. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2002. "Asian Elephants as Agricultural Pests: Damages, Economics of Control and Compensation in Sri Lanka," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48735, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    8. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, January.
    9. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    10. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    11. World Bank, 2018. "The World Bank Annual Report 2018 [Informe Anual 2018 del Banco Mundial]," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 30326.
    12. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    13. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    14. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.
    15. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
    16. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.
    17. Willy, Daniel Kyalo & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2013. "Social influence and collective action effects on farm level soil conservation effort in rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 94-103.
    18. Sims, Charles & Aadland, David & Finnoff, David & Hochard, Jacob, 2020. "What are the benefits of delisting endangered species and who receives them?: Lessons from the gray wolf recovery in Greater Yellowstone," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    19. Rupak Goswami & Soumitra Chatterjee & Binoy Prasad, 2014. "Farm types and their economic characterization in complex agro-ecosystems for informed extension intervention: study from coastal West Bengal, India," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, December.
    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. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian & Binner, Amy & Ferrini, Silvia & Fezzi, Carlo, 2019. "Structurally-consistent estimation of use and nonuse values for landscape-wide environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    2. 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).
    3. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    4. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    5. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    6. Ruokamo, Enni, 2016. "Household preferences of hybrid home heating systems – A choice experiment application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 224-237.
    7. S. Ceolotto & E. Denny, 2024. "Putting a New ‘Spin’ on Energy Information: Measuring the Impact of Reframing Energy Efficiency Information on Tumble Dryer Choices in a Multi-country Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 51-108, March.
    8. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    9. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    10. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    11. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    13. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    14. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    15. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika, 2014. "Heterogeneous Demand for Drought-Tolerant Rice: Evidence from Bihar, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 125-139.
    16. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2018. "A More Flexible Model or Simply More Effort? On the Use of Correlated Random Parameters in Applied Choice Studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 419-429.
    17. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    18. Feld, Brian & Nagy, AbdelRahman & Osman, Adam, 2022. "What do jobseekers want? Comparing methods to estimate reservation wages and the value of job attributes," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    19. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    20. 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.

    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:224:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924001976. 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.