IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12568-d678880.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marine Sites and the Drivers of Wellbeing: Ecosystem vs. Anthropic Services

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Cavalletti

    (Department of Economics, University of Genoa, 16126 Genoa, Italy)

  • Matteo Corsi

    (Department of Economics, University of Genoa, 16126 Genoa, Italy)

  • Elena Lagomarsino

    (Department of Economics and Management “Marco Fanno”—CRIEP, University of Padua, 35123 Padua, Italy)

Abstract

Coastal sites offer a range of services that contribute to human wellbeing. While some of the services are entirely human-made (e.g., parasol and sunbed rental), others are produced thanks to the contribution of marine ecosystems (e.g., water clarity). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the preferences of a sample of beachgoers for these two categories of services that policymakers have to balance when designing management strategies for coastal sites. We consider a marine site in the north of Italy that partially falls within the boundaries of a protected area but that is characterized by a medium-to-high level of anthropization. The results of a discrete choice experiment show that in the current state of things, the ecosystem services proposed for the sample have, on average, a higher marginal utility, suggesting that actions increasing those services have a larger effect on well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Cavalletti & Matteo Corsi & Elena Lagomarsino, 2021. "Marine Sites and the Drivers of Wellbeing: Ecosystem vs. Anthropic Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12568-:d:678880
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12568/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12568/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Lisa E. Svensson & Anil Markandya (ed.), 2017. "Handbook on the Economics and Management of Sustainable Oceans," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 17310.
    2. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline & Burdon, Daryl & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Austen, Melanie C., 2014. "Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 229-241.
    3. Payal Shah & Sahan T.M. Dissanayake & Nils Carlson & Yoko Fujita & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, 2017. "Preferences for marine protection in Okinawa: a comparison of management options and two groups of beneficiaries," Chapters, in: Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Lisa E. Svensson & Anil Markandya (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Management of Sustainable Oceans, chapter 8, pages 174-198, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Luís C. Rodrigues & Jeroen C. J. M. Bergh & Maria L. Loureiro & Paulo A. L. D. Nunes & Sergio Rossi, 2016. "The Cost of Mediterranean Sea Warming and Acidification: A Choice Experiment Among Scuba Divers at Medes Islands, Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 289-311, February.
    5. McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic, 2010. "Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: An application to the UK Marine Bill," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 413-424, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    8. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    10. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    11. Abbie A. Rogers, 2013. "Social Welfare and Marine Reserves: Is Willingness to Pay for Conservation Dependent on Management Process? A Discrete Choice Experiment of the Ningaloo Marine Park in Australia," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(2), pages 217-238, June.
    12. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    13. Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Kenter, Jasper O., 2014. "Looking below the surface: The cultural ecosystem service values of UK marine protected areas (MPAs)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 97-110.
    14. Glenn, H. & Wattage, P. & Mardle, S. & Rensburg, T. Van & Grehan, A. & Foley, N., 2010. "Marine protected areas--substantiating their worth," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 421-430, May.
    15. Josep Pueyo-Ros, 2018. "The Role of Tourism in the Ecosystem Services Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, September.
    16. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Campbell, Danny & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Disentangling the influence of knowledge on attribute non-attendance," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 36-50.
    17. 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.
    18. Christie, Michael & Remoundou, Kyriaki & Siwicka, Ewa & Wainwright, Warwick, 2015. "Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem service benefits: Case study of St Vincent and the Grenadines’ proposed marine protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 115-127.
    19. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    20. Paltriguera, L. & Ferrini, S. & Luisetti, T. & Turner, R.K., 2018. "An analysis and valuation of post-designation management aimed at maximising recreational benefits in coastal Marine Protected Areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 121-130.
    21. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    22. Daniele Pacifico & Hong il Yoo, 2013. "lclogit: A Stata command for fitting latent-class conditional logit models via the expectation-maximization algorithm," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(3), pages 625-639, September.
    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. Qi Chen & Yun Zhang, 2023. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Artificial Beach Park Development and Management: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.

    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. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    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. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    6. Kristīne Pakalniete & Heini Ahtiainen & Juris Aigars & Ingrīda Andersone & Aurelija Armoškaite & Henning Sten Hansen & Solvita Strāķe, 2021. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-30, September.
    7. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    8. Francisco Guijarro & Prodromos Tsinaslanidis, 2020. "Analysis of Academic Literature on Environmental Valuation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, March.
    9. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    10. Ridier, Aude & Roussy, Caroline & Chaib, Karim, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), April.
    11. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    12. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    13. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    14. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    15. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    16. 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.
    17. Agimass, Fitalew & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2011. "Low-income fishermen's willingness-to-pay for fisheries and watershed management: An application of choice experiment to Lake Tana, Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 162-170.
    18. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    19. Caporale, Diana & De Lucia, Caterina, 2015. "Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1378-1390.
    20. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12568-:d:678880. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.