When the Tide is High: Estimating the Welfare Impact of Coastal Erosion Management
A choice experiment was undertaken at Buffalo beach, Whitianga, in order to investigate beach visitors’ preferences for various coastal erosion management options. Constructing rock seawalls is a common response to coastal erosion but seawalls can negatively affect visual amenity, biodiversity and recreational values. The choice experiment results from this study show that the average visitor would be willing to pay $20 per year to remove an existing rock wall at either end of Buffalo beach. Visitors place high value on useable sandy beaches and reserve areas behind the beach. A latent class analysis reveals there are distinct sub-groups with varying preferences for beach characteristics. This paper presents a model with separate classes for residents and visitors and the compensating variation estimates to calculate the overall welfare effect for three coastal management scenarios.
|Date of creation:||2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.nzares.org.nz/|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
- John Whitehead & Daniel Phaneuf & Christopher Dumas & Jim Herstine & Jeffery Hill & Bob Buerger, 2010.
"Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 91-112, January.
- John C. Whitehead & Daniel Phaneuf & Christopher F. Dumas & Jim Herstine & Jeffrey Hill & Bob Buerger, 2007. "Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands," Working Papers 07-17, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, revised 2008.
- Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981.
"Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models,"
Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-30, January.
- Harvey S. Rosen & Kenneth A. Small, 1979. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 0319, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2010. "Obtaining more information from conjoint experiments by best-worst choices," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1426-1433, June.
- Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
- R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
- Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
- Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K. & McFadden, Daniel, 1995. "A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 1-30, January.
- Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:nzar11:115414. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.