IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa14p1017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Valuation of the Damage to Tourism Benefits by Eastern Japan Great Earthquake Disaster

Author

Listed:
  • Katsuhito Nohara

Abstract

Main purpose of this study is to evaluate the lost benefits of tourism by harmful rumors or misinformation proceeded from Higashi Nihon Daishinsai, literally Eastern Japan Great Earthquake Disaster on 11 March 2011. Its great earthquake disaster has done a lot of damages to many people, buildings, key infrastructures, and regional economy. Most regions have recovered from a devastating earthquake, but tourism industry of Tohoku region which include Aomori, Akita Iwate, Yamagata, Miyagi and Fukushima prefecture is still stagnant. There is little famous sight-seeing area at Pacific coast of Tohoku region where was hit by a gigantic earthquake and subsequently by a giant tsunami. Despite most famous tourist spots of Tohoku region, for example Hiraizumi where was registered as a World Heritage Site in 2001, Naruko spring, Aizu and so on, are located an inland area of the northeastern part of Japan, total tourists who visited Tohoku region decreased little by little after that disaster. This main reason is harmful rumors or misinformation brought about serious accidents at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants No.1 of Tokyo Electric Power Company. Although more than three years have already passed and the number of tourist who visit to Tohoku region recovered the previous level in some area, there still remains significant damage in some area due to the tourist's concern of radioactive pollution despite of the area are not actually polluted at all. This is so called the economical damages caused by harmful rumors or misinformation. In Fukushima, the slump in travel demand is in a terrible state because of harmful rumors or misinformation. Tourism industry is very important for Fukushima because the annual amount of tourism consumption (287,663,000,000yen) exceeds the annual amount of gross agricultural output (233,000,000,000yen) and the shipment value of food (278,200,000,000yen) in 2010. Therefore, this study applies to Travel Cost Method- Contingent Behavior (TCM-CB) which is capable of evaluating impact for benefits by changing environmental quality. Specifically, this study estimates the hypothetical travel demand function if the accident of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants No.1 is not occurred and calculates lost tourism benefits due to harmful rumors or misinformation by comparing that derived hypothetical demand function with actual travel demand function. Then the author suggests that simplified monetary compensation system which makes up for lost tourism benefits should be introduced to certain areas in Fukushima.

Suggested Citation

  • Katsuhito Nohara, 2014. "Economic Valuation of the Damage to Tourism Benefits by Eastern Japan Great Earthquake Disaster," ERSA conference papers ersa14p1017, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa14p1017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa14/e140826aFinal01017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2013. "Regression Analysis of Count Data," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107667273, January.
    2. Hubbell, Bryan J. & Marra, Michele C. & Carlson, Gerald A., 2000. "Estimating The Demand For A New Technology: Bt Cotton And Insecticide Policies In The Southeast," Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 26016, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    3. Beaumais, Olivier & Appéré, Gildas, 2010. "Recreational shellfish harvesting and health risks: A pseudo-panel approach combining revealed and stated preference data with correction for on-site sampling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2315-2322, October.
    4. Englin, Jeffrey & Shonkwiler, J S, 1995. "Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 104-112, February.
    5. Shaw, Daigee, 1988. "On-site samples' regression : Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 211-223, February.
    6. Jie Q. Guo & Pravin K. Trivedi, 2002. "Flexible Parametric Models for Long‐tailed Patent Count Distributions," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 64(1), pages 63-82, February.
    7. Rakhal Sarker & Yves Surry, 2004. "The Fast Decay Process in Outdoor Recreational Activities and the Use of Alternative Count Data Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 701-715.
    8. O. Morgan & John Whitehead & William Huth & Greg Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 593-611, April.
    9. Egan, Kevin & Herriges, Joseph, 2006. "Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 567-581, September.
    10. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 2004. "Risk Valuation in the Presence of Risky Substitutes: An Application to Demand for Seafood," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 213-228, April.
    11. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    12. Bryan J. Hubbell & Michele C. Marra & Gerald A. Carlson, 2000. "Estimating the Demand for a New Technology: Bt Cotton and Insecticide Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), pages 118-132.
    13. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    14. Rainer Winkelmann, 2000. "Seemingly Unrelated Negative Binomial Regression," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 62(4), pages 553-560, September.
    15. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    16. Winkelmann, Rainer, 2000. "Seemingly Unrelated Negative Binomial Regression," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 62(4), pages 553-560, September.
    17. Deborah Vaughn Nestor, 1998. "Policy Evaluation with Combined Actual and Contingent Response Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 264-276.
    18. Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2000. "Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 339-354, October.
    19. R. Craig Layman & John R. Boyce & Keith R. Criddle, 1996. "Economic Valuation of the Chinook Salmon Sport Fishery of the Gulkana River, Alaska, under Current and Alternate Management Plans," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 113-128.
    20. Marc O. Ribaudo & Donald J. Epp, 1984. "The Importance of Sample Discrimination in Using the Travel Cost Method to Estimate the Benefits of Improved Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 60(4), pages 397-403.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Katsuhito Nohara & Masaki Narukawa, 2015. "Measuring lost recreational benefits in Fukushima due to harmful rumors using a Poisson-inverse Gaussian regression?," ERSA conference papers ersa15p344, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Simões, Paula & Barata, Eduardo & Cruz, Luís, 2013. "Joint estimation using revealed and stated preference data: An application using a national forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 249-266.
    3. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    4. Stephen Hynes & William Greene, 2016. "Preference Heterogeneity in Contingent Behaviour Travel Cost Models with On-site Samples: A Random Parameter vs. a Latent Class Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 348-367, June.
    5. Voltaire, Louinord & Koutchade, Obafèmi Philippe, 2020. "Public acceptance of and heterogeneity in behavioral beach trip responses to offshore wind farm development in Catalonia (Spain)," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Stephen Hynes & William Greene, 2013. "A Panel Travel Cost Model Accounting for Endogenous Stratification and Truncation: A Latent Class Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 177-192.
    7. Beaumais, Olivier & Appéré, Gildas, 2010. "Recreational shellfish harvesting and health risks: A pseudo-panel approach combining revealed and stated preference data with correction for on-site sampling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2315-2322, October.
    8. Egan, Kevin & Herriges, Joseph, 2006. "Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 567-581, September.
    9. Hynes, Stephen & Greene, William, 2012. "Panel Travel Cost Count Data Models for On-Site Samples that Incorporate Unobserved Heterogeneity with Respect to the Impact of the Explanatory Variables," Working Papers 148834, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    10. Isabel Mendes & Isabel Proença, 2009. "Measuring the Social Recreation Per-Day Net Benefit of Wildlife Amenities of a National Park: A Count-Data Travel Cost Approach," Working Papers Department of Economics 2009/35, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    11. Luís Cruz & Paula Simões & Eduardo Barata, 2014. "Combining Observed and Contingent Travel Behaviour: The Best of Both Worlds?," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 7-25, December.
    12. Nobel, Anne & Lizin, Sebastien & Witters, Nele & Rineau, Francois & Malina, Robert, 2020. "The impact of wildfires on the recreational value of heathland: A discrete factor approach with adjustment for on-site sampling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    13. Chin†Huang Huang, 2017. "Estimating the environmental effects and recreational benefits of cultivated flower land for environmental quality improvement in Taiwan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 29-39, January.
    14. Hoyos, David & Riera, Pere, 2013. "Convergent validity between revealed and stated recreation demand data: Some empirical evidence from the Basque Country, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 234-248.
    15. Massimo Filippini & William Greene & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz, 2018. "Non-market Value of Winter Outdoor Recreation in the Swiss Alps: The Case of Val Bedretto," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(3), pages 729-754, November.
    16. Ojumu, Oluwagbemiga & Hite, Diane & Fields, Deacue, 2009. "Estimating Demand For Recreational Fishing In Alabama Using Travel Cost Model," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46858, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Paula Simões & Luís Cruz & Eduardo Barata, 2012. "Non-market Recreational Value of a National Forest: Survey Design and Results," GEMF Working Papers 2012-09, GEMF, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra.
    18. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Tobias, Justin L., 2008. "Estimating demand systems when outcomes are correlated counts," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 282-298, December.
    19. Mahadev Bhat & Ramachandra Bhatta & Mohamed Shumais, 2014. "Sustainable funding policies for environmental protection: the case of Maldivian atolls," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(1), pages 45-67, January.
    20. O. Morgan & John Whitehead & William Huth & Greg Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 593-611, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa14p1017. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.