IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01945969.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Visitors' awareness of ICZM and WTP for beach preservation in four European Mediterranean regions

Author

Listed:
  • S. Marzetti
  • M. Disegna
  • E. Koutrakis
  • A. Sapounidis
  • V. Marin
  • S. Martino
  • Sébastien Roussel

    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • H. Rey-Valette

    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • C. Paoli

Abstract

This paper discusses the results of a multi-country survey about private stakeholders' contribution to coastal preservation. It was conducted in four coastal sites of Greece, Italy and France, in order to collect information about beach visitors' perception of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and their willingness to pay (WTP) for beach preservation, intended here as defence from erosion. In order to find out whether ICZM perception is a determinant of WTP, regression analysis is applied. Results show that in these sites respondents have a low level of information about the nature of ICZM, despite local authorities having implemented some ICZM strategies for preserving the coast. Nevertheless, those who are informed about ICZM have a higher probability of paying for beach preservation. This suggests to policymakers that promoting public awareness about ICZM may increase the probability of paying. Finally, some categories of visitors, such as women and young and middle-aged people, have a higher probability of paying than men and older people, thus suggesting a more sensitive attitude to beach preservation. Therefore, policy-makers should also pay attention to the categories of visitors less likely to pay.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • S. Marzetti & M. Disegna & E. Koutrakis & A. Sapounidis & V. Marin & S. Martino & Sébastien Roussel & H. Rey-Valette & C. Paoli, 2016. "Visitors' awareness of ICZM and WTP for beach preservation in four European Mediterranean regions," Post-Print hal-01945969, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01945969
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Silva Marzetti Dall'Aste Brandolini & Marta Disegna, 2015. "ICZM and WTP of Stakeholders for Beach Conservation: Policymaking Suggestions from an Italian Case Study," Tourism Economics, , vol. 21(3), pages 601-628, June.
    2. Philippe Polomé & Silva Marzetti & Anne van Der Veen, 2005. "Economic and Social Demand for Coastal Protection," Post-Print halshs-00359063, HAL.
    3. Birdir, Sevda & Ünal, Özlem & Birdir, Kemal & Williams, Allan T., 2013. "Willingness to pay as an economic instrument for coastal tourism management: Cases from Mersin, Turkey," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 279-283.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    5. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    6. Desvouges, William H. & Naughton, Michael C. & Parsons, George R., 1992. "Benefits transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies," MPRA Paper 36405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Rodelio F Subade, 2005. "Valuing Biodiversity Conservation in a World Heritage Site: Citizen's Non-use Values for Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park, Philippines," EEPSEA Research Report rr2005064, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jun 2005.
    8. Jonathan Silberman & Daniel A. Gerlowski & Nancy A. Williams, 1992. "Estimating Existence Value for Users and Nonusers of New Jersey Beaches," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 225-236.
    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. Chiara Paoli & Paolo Povero & Ilaria Rigo & Giulia Dapueto & Rachele Bordoni & Paolo Vassallo, 2022. "Two Sides of the Same Coin: A Theoretical Framework for Strong Sustainability in Marine Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Mohammad Tipu Sultan & Farzana Sharmin & Alina Badulescu & Elena Stiubea & Ke Xue, 2020. "Travelers’ Responsible Environmental Behavior towards Sustainable Coastal Tourism: An Empirical Investigation on Social Media User-Generated Content," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Susana Oliveira & Lígia M. Costa Pinto, 2021. "Choice experiments to elicit the users’ preferences for coastal erosion management: the case of Praia da Amorosa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 9749-9765, July.
    4. George Halkos & Aikaterini Leonti & Eleni Sardianou, 2020. "Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-24, June.

    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. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    3. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    7. Andrea Báez-Montenegro & Ana Bedate Centeno & José à ngel Sanz Lara & Luis Cesar Herrero Prieto, 2016. "Contingent valuation and motivation analysis of tourist routes," Tourism Economics, , vol. 22(3), pages 558-571, June.
    8. Börger, Tobias & Beaumont, Nicola J. & Pendleton, Linwood & Boyle, Kevin J. & Cooper, Philip & Fletcher, Stephen & Haab, Tim & Hanemann, Michael & Hooper, Tara L. & Hussain, S. Salman & Portela, Rosim, 2014. "Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 161-170.
    9. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Silva Marzetti Dall'Aste Brandolini & Marta Disegna, 2012. "Demand for the Quality Conservation of Venice, Italy, According to Different Nationalities," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(5), pages 1019-1050, October.
    11. Silva Marzetti Dall'Aste Brandolini & Marta Disegna, 2015. "ICZM and WTP of Stakeholders for Beach Conservation: Policymaking Suggestions from an Italian Case Study," Tourism Economics, , vol. 21(3), pages 601-628, June.
    12. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    13. Tran Huu Tuan, 2007. "Valuing the Economic Benefits of Preserving Cultural Heritage: The My Son Sanctuary World Heritage Site in Vietnam," EEPSEA Research Report rr2007072, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jul 2007.
    14. Jayalath, Tharaka A. & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Evans, David L., 2021. "Increasing provision of ecosystem services through participation in a conservation program," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Hynes, Stephen & O'Donoghue, Cathal, 2019. "Estimating the value of achieving good ecological status across Irish water catchments using value transfer," Working Papers 309538, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    17. Tran Tuan & Stale Navrud, 2007. "Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 51-69, September.
    18. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    19. 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.
    20. Jagoda Adamus, 2023. "How Much Are Public Spaces Worth? Non-Market Valuation Methods in Valuing Public Spaces," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 2, pages 66-89.

    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:hal:journl:hal-01945969. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.