IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v27y2009i1p110-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science and Uncertainty in South Africa's Elephant Culling Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Dickson
  • William M Adams

Abstract

We analyse the debate about the culling of elephants in South Africa's national parks. This pits the need to reduce elephant density and grazing pressure to prevent environmental damage against animal-welfare concerns about the killing of elephants. This complex debate is characterised by factual uncertainty and moral complexity. The procull storyline suggests that high elephant densities pose a risk to biodiversity. The anticull standpoint critiques this position as politically and economically motivated and lacking in adequate scientific support. Both procull and anticull positions draw on science as a source of authority, and on the precautionary principle as a framework for making decisions. They differ in their interpretation of the scientific evidence for serious impacts of high elephant densities, the relations between scientific, ethical, and economic arguments, and the way uncertainty and the idea of a precautionary approach are used. A decision to resume culling of elephants in South Africa was made in February 2008, but debate continues.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Dickson & William M Adams, 2009. "Science and Uncertainty in South Africa's Elephant Culling Debate," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 27(1), pages 110-123, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:27:y:2009:i:1:p:110-123
    DOI: 10.1068/c0792j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c0792j
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c0792j?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. Richard T. Woodward & Richard C. Bishop, 1997. "How to Decide When Experts Disagree: Uncertainty-Based Choice Rules in Environmental Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(4), pages 492-507.
    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. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    2. Cherchye, Laurens & Knox Lovell, C.A. & Moesen, Wim & Van Puyenbroeck, Tom, 2007. "One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 749-779, April.
    3. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    4. Rezai, Armon & van der Ploeg, Frederick, 2017. "Climate policies under climate model uncertainty: Max-min and min-max regret," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 4-16.
    5. Thomas D. Pol & Ekko C. Ierland & Silke Gabbert, 2017. "Economic analysis of adaptive strategies for flood risk management under climate change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 267-285, February.
    6. Riccardo Rebonato & Riccardo Ronzani & Lionel Melin, 2023. "Robust management of climate risk damages," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(3), pages 1-43, September.
    7. Guest, Ross, 2010. "The economics of sustainability in the context of climate change: An overview," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 326-335, October.
    8. T. D. Pol & S. Gabbert & H.-P. Weikard & E. C. Ierland & E. M. T. Hendrix, 2017. "A Minimax Regret Analysis of Flood Risk Management Strategies Under Climate Change Uncertainty and Emerging Information," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1087-1109, December.
    9. Berrens, Robert P. & McKee, Michael & Farmer, Michael C., 1999. "Incorporating distributional considerations in the safe minimum standard approach: endangered species and local impacts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 461-474, September.
    10. Aldred, Jonathan, 2013. "Justifying precautionary policies: Incommensurability and uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 132-140.
    11. Arnaud Mignan & Marco Broccardo & Ziqi Wang, 2021. "Comprehensive Survey of Seismic Hazard at Geothermal Sites by a Meta-Analysis of the Underground Feedback Activation Parameter a fb," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-15, November.
    12. Michael Margolis & Eric Nævdal, 2008. "Safe Minimum Standards in Dynamic Resource Problems: Conditions for Living on the Edge of Risk," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 401-423, July.
    13. Hasson, Reviva & Löfgren, Åsa & Visser, Martine, 2010. "Climate change in a public goods game: Investment decision in mitigation versus adaptation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 331-338, December.
    14. Toman Michael, 2014. "The need for multiple types of information to inform climate change assessment," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 469-485, December.
    15. Antony Millner, 2013. "On Welfare Frameworks and Catastrophic Climate Risks," CESifo Working Paper Series 4442, CESifo.
    16. W. Botzen & Jeroen Bergh, 2014. "Specifications of Social Welfare in Economic Studies of Climate Policy: Overview of Criteria and Related Policy Insights," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 1-33, May.
    17. Grijalva, Therese & Berrens, Robert P. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2011. "Species preservation versus development: An experimental investigation under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 995-1005, March.
    18. DeCanio, Stephen J., 2009. "The political economy of global carbon emissions reductions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 915-924, January.
    19. Padilla, Emilio, 2002. "Intergenerational equity and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 69-83, April.
    20. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2020. "Robust portfolio decision analysis: An application to the energy research and development portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 1107-1120.

    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:sae:envirc:v:27:y:2009:i:1:p:110-123. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.