Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 12, Issue 12, pp 2361–2392 | Cite as

A study of environmental conflict: the economic value of Grey Seals in southwest England

Article

Abstract

This paper reports an analysis of a typical case of negative bilateral externality – a situation in which two legitimate activities, fishing and wildlife conservation, each give rise to damages to the other party. The Cornish fishing industry believes that its annual profits are reduced by an estimated £100 000 because of the damage by seal populations to caught fish. About 80 individuals belonging to the Cornish Grey Seal population (of about 400 specimens) are killed as a by-catch of trawling. Thus, the status quo is clearly inefficient: seals are perceived to damage fish and fishermen definitely damage seals. The biological dynamics of the seal population is not absolutely clear, so that a precautionary approach requires that care should be taken to avoid the risk of damaging the population in an irreversible way. Moreover, public opinion considers seals to be a high value ‘flagship’ species. One of the goals of any conflict resolution should be to capture the economic value of seal conservation – i.e. to convert conservation benefits into resource flows – and use at least part of it in order to create incentives for a more efficient allocation of resources. The authorities should invest in seal conservation (i.e. compensating fishermen) if the benefits deriving from conservation exceed the opportunity costs of conservation. Such a solution clearly requires that the conservation benefits be estimated. To investigate the economic value of seal conservation a contingent valuation study is carried out. A contingent valuation study utilises a questionnaire approach and part of the questionnaire seeks to elicit individuals' willingness to pay (WTP) for a change in the state of some good or asset, in this case seal conservation. Due to resource limitations, the sample size of those interviewed in the study reported is small, so that we cannot be extremely confident about the results. However, they are consistent with those derived from similar studies on ‘flagship’ species. Results show a mean WTP for recreational use of seals of about £8 per person for the option of seeing seals in a specialised sanctuary for seals recovered from accidents, and closer to £9 for seeing seals in the wild. The annual non-use value of seals – i.e. value unassociated with actual viewing – was found to be £526 000 in the most conservative estimation, aggregated over the Seal Sanctuary visitors. This economic potential could be realised in several ways and used to compensate fishermen for changing fishing techniques, targets and fishing areas. Finally, we investigate the role the Seal Sanctuary is playing in this context and some policy suggestions are discussed.

Conflict Economic value Externality Fishing Grey seals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bateman I., Langford I., Jones A. and Kerry G. 2001. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 497: 1-23.Google Scholar
  2. Berry C. 1996. Marine Resource Utilisation. North Sea Monitor, UK Vol. 14, pp. 6-9.Google Scholar
  3. Bonner G. 1989. The Natural History of Seals. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  4. Cameron T.A. 1988. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 355-379.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron T.A. and James D. 1987. Efficient estimation methods for closed ended contingent valuation surveys.The Review of Economics and Statistics 69: 269-276.Google Scholar
  6. English Nature 1996. Marine Special Areas of Conservation. English Nature, Peterborough, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Glen D. 1998. Grey Seal Conservation, M.Sc. Thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
  8. Greene W.H. 1997. Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  9. Kristrom B. 1997. Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 3: 1013-1023.Google Scholar
  10. Langford I., Kontogianni A., Skourtos M., Georgiou S. and Bateman I. 1998a. ulti-variate mixed models for open-ended contingent valuation data: willingness to pay for conservation of Monk seals. Environmental and Resource Economics 12: 443-456.Google Scholar
  11. Langford I., Skourtos M., Kontogianni A., Day R., Georgiou S. and Bateman I. 1998b. Use and non-use values for conserving endangered species-the case of the Mediterranean Monk seal, unpublished paper. CSERGE, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.Google Scholar
  12. NOAA Panels 1992. Federal Register. 58(10): pp. 4601-4614.Google Scholar
  13. PESCA 1996. Delivery Plan: South West England, 1996-1999.Google Scholar
  14. Ready R., Navrud S. and Dubourg R. 1998. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Benefits Transfer and the Economic Valuation of Environ-mental Damage in the European Union. A Report to Directorate General XII of the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  15. Reiser B. and Shechter M. 1998a. Incorporating zero values in the economic evaluation of environmental program benefits. Environmetrics 10: 87-101.Google Scholar
  16. Scarpa R. and Bateman I. 2000. Efficiency gains afforded by improved bid design versus follow-up valuation questions in discrete choice CV studies. Land Economics 76: 299-311.Google Scholar
  17. Scarpa R., Willis K.G. and Garrod 2001. Estimating WTP for speed reduction from dichotomous-choice CVresponses with follow-up: the case of rural trunk roads. Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 281-304.Google Scholar
  18. Wescott S. 1996. Cornwall Biodiversity Initiative. Species Action Plan: Grey Seal. (unpublished).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento Informatica, Sistemistica e ComunicazioneUniversità degli Studi di Milano BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global EnvironmentUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations