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

IF 6.6 2区 经济学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecological Economics Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108300
{"title":"Are farmers willing to accept compensation from tourism revenue for elephant crop damage and coexistence support? Evidence from Sri Lanka","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924001976","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
农民是否愿意接受旅游收入对大象作物损害的补偿和共存支持?斯里兰卡的证据
在世界许多地区,人类与野生动物冲突的发生率正在上升。在野生动物是主要旅游景点的国家,这一问题变得更加复杂。例如,虽然自给农户的庄稼可能会被大象毁坏,但它们同时也是重要的旅游吸引物。这项关于斯里兰卡人与野生动物冲突的研究探讨了这一问题,并提出了一个解决方案,即通过旅游收入和/或旅游税(如登船税)为农民提供补偿。为了确定该建议的可行性,我们调查了受影响的农民是否愿意接受与大象有关的作物损害赔偿,从而为共存提供经济手段。我们通过离散选择实验对提出的方案进行了测试,实验涉及 439 个受影响的农户。建模结果表明,农民认为大象光顾他们的农田会增加他们的经济损失。然而,当整块农田被毁时,他们愿意接受平均每英亩 295 美元的补偿。建模结果显示了偏好的异质性:农民的教育程度、性别、旅游机会和环保俱乐部成员身份对他们与人象冲突共存(HEC)的偏好有显著影响。特别是,"作物转换与教育程度 "和 "作物转换与性别 "之间的交互作用表明,与教育程度较低的女性农民相比,教育程度较高的男性农民更倾向于通过改变农田作物来适应环境。此外,优先考虑旅游机会的农民和与环保俱乐部有联系的农民对共存持更开放的态度,因为与他们相比,他们愿意容纳更多的大象访问他们的农田。本研究的主要结果是,旅游业有可能促进解决生境冲突问题,并为解决生境冲突奠定基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ecological Economics
Ecological Economics 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
5.70%
发文量
313
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership. Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.
期刊最新文献
If there is waste, there is a system: Understanding Victoria's circular economy transition from a systems thinking perspective Raising awareness of climate change: Nature, activists, politicians? Back to the future: An experiment on ecological restoration Buzzword or breakthrough beyond growth? The mainstreaming of the Wellbeing Economy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1