IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/18-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Passive Use Values with Recreation Demand and Contingent Valuation Data

Author

Listed:
  • Craig E. Landry
  • J. Scott Shonkwiler
  • John C. Whitehead

Abstract

Revealed and stated preference survey data from North Carolina households are utilized to estimate a joint structural microeconometric model of recreation demand and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for coastal erosion management among beach visitors and non-visitors. We test for and reject weak complementarity, implying existence of non-use values associated with management of North Carolina’s coastal resources. We find stronger preferences for shoreline retreat (median WTP = $22.20 per household, per year) as a management strategy relative to beach nourishment (WTP = $7.45) and substantially weaker preferences for shoreline armoring (WTP = $0.09). Shoreline retreat exhibits much larger estimates of non-use values, whereas non-use values for shoreline armoring are negative. Minimizing negative environmental impacts of erosion management increases WTP over 200%. Our data permit estimates of marginal value of incremental beach width accruing to beach users and non-users (which ranges from $0.23 and $0.47 per meter). Key Words: recreation; demand; beach; erosion; management; economic; value

Suggested Citation

  • Craig E. Landry & J. Scott Shonkwiler & John C. Whitehead, 2018. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Passive Use Values with Recreation Demand and Contingent Valuation Data," Working Papers 18-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:18-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp1809.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
    2. Smith, Martin D. & Slott, Jordan M. & McNamara, Dylan & Brad Murray, A., 2009. "Beach nourishment as a dynamic capital accumulation problem," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 58-71, July.
    3. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    5. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    6. Gopalakrishnan, Sathya & Smith, Martin D. & Slott, Jordan M. & Murray, A. Brad, 2011. "The value of disappearing beaches: A hedonic pricing model with endogenous beach width," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 297-310, May.
    7. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    8. Udo Ebert, 1998. "Evaluation of Nonmarket Goods: Recovering Unconditional Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 241-254.
    9. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
    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. Christos Makriyannis & Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2022. "Do numerical probabilities promote informed stated preference responses under inherent uncertainty? Insight from a coastal adaptation choice experiment," Working Papers 2022-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.

    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. Landry, Craig E. & Whitehead, John C., 2015. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Passive Use Values with Recreation and Contingent Valuation Data," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Landry, Craig E. & Shonkwiler, J. Scott & Whitehead, John C., 2020. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Existence Values with recreation demand and contingent valuation data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    3. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    4. 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.
    5. Tensay Hadush Meles & Razack Lokina & Erica Louis Mtenga & Julieth Julius Tibanywana, 2023. "Stated Preferences with Survey Consequentiality and Outcome Uncertainty: A Split Sample Discrete Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(4), pages 717-754, December.
    6. Allen Blackman & Francisco Alpízar & Fredrik Carlsson & Marisol Rivera Planter, 2018. "A Contingent Valuation Approach to Estimating Regulatory Costs: Mexico’s Day without Driving Program," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(3), pages 607-641.
    7. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    8. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    9. Egan, Kevin J. & Corrigan, Jay R. & Dwyer, Daryl F., 2015. "Three reasons to use annual payments in contingent valuation surveys: Convergent validity, discount rates, and mental accounting," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 123-136.
    10. Bulte, Erwin & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 330-342, March.
    11. Blackman, Allen & Qin, Ping & Yang, Jun, 2020. "How costly are driving restrictions? Contingent valuation evidence from Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    13. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    14. Riera, Pere & Signorello, Giovanni & Thiene, Mara & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Navrud, Ståle & Kaval, Pamela & Rulleau, Benedicte & Mavsar, Robert & Madureira, Lívia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Elsasser, Pe, 2012. "Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 259-270.
    15. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    16. Pappalardo, Gioacchino & West, Grant Howard & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Toscano, Sabrina & Pecorino, Biagio, 2022. "The effect of a UNESCO world heritage site designation on willingness to pay to preserve an agri-environmental good: The case of the dry stone walls in Mt. Etna," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    17. Tanvir Pavel & Pallab Mozumder, 2019. "Household Preferences for Managing Coastal Vulnerability: State vs. Federal Adaptation Fund," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 281-304, October.
    18. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is," Monash Economics Working Papers 42-16, Monash University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    recreation; demand; beach; erosion; management; economic; value;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:apl:wpaper:18-09. 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: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.html .

    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.