Estimating Existence Value for Users and Nonusers of New Jersey Beaches

Silberman, Jonathan; Gerlowski, Daniel A.; Williams, Nancy A.

doi:10.2307/3146776

Cited by 65 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results could be improved by separating those non-users with prior knowledge about wetland which our study failed to do that. Our results are similar, e.g., with the findings of previous studies which found that user people with more knowledge and familiarity with wetland would pay higher value (Cameron & Englin, 1997;Meyerhoff & Dehnhardt, 2007;Silberman et al, 1992;Martínez-Paz & Perni, 2011;Alberini et al, 2003).…”

Section: Results Of the Choice Experimentssupporting

confidence: 82%

Users and Non-users of Wetland Area; Willingness to Pay and Demand Elasticity

Kaffashi¹,

Shamsudin²,

Radam³

et al. 2015

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper uses error component model to elicit respondents preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for wetland conservation. The main objective of this research was to estimate the difference between preferences and WTP of respondents who are users of wetland and those who consider as non-users. The results of structural equation modelling (SEM) and error component logit model (ECM) showed significant difference between WTP and attitudinal factors of two groups. The results of SEM indicated that respondents' management concerns, income, and their employment status had positive and direct effect on their WTP. Results of ECM showed that user model is slightly better predictor of respondents' choice. The non-market values of the wetland for users are estimated approximately US$ 3.67 per household per month meanwhile this value for nonusers was about US$ 2.80. The overall results indicated that familiarity and previous knowledge on wetland has significant effect on respondnets' perception, attitudes and WTP. Results also showed that demand for better conservation and management of wetland is relatively price inelastic. This study conclude that improvement in Shadegan International Wetland management will bring higher utility for both users and nonusers society and hence will be supported by them.

show abstract

Section: Results Of the Choice Experimentssupporting

confidence: 82%

Users and Non-users of Wetland Area; Willingness to Pay and Demand Elasticity

Kaffashi¹,

Shamsudin²,

Radam³

et al. 2015

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of various CV studies. We note that Silberman and Klock (1988) and Silberman et al (1992) focus on the existence value of a beach, and that the results by Silberman et al (1992) show that those who would visit the beach state on average a higher WTP than those who would not visit it. Goodman et al (1996) evaluate conservation benefits in general, while Spash et al (2000) and Subade (2005) evaluate non-use values.…”

Section: Cvm Applied To Coastal and Marine Conservation: Existing Litmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICZM and WTP of Stakeholders for Beach Conservation: Policymaking Suggestions from an Italian Case Study

Marzetti

Disegna

2015

Tourism Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In accordance with integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), private stakeholders could be asked to pay for the benefits from beach conservation projects. Since a private contribution is measured by the amount of other goods a person is willing to give up for beach quality, it can be solicited in monetary terms or, when possible, in other forms, such as specific works. In this paper, by analysing the results of two surveys in Italy concerning stakeholders' perceptions of ICZM and their willingness to pay for these benefits, suggestions for beach management are provided to policymakers. One survey focuses on beach visitors who are asked to pay in monetary terms, while the other focuses on sunbathing establishment managers, who are asked to pay not only in monetary terms but also through beach works. The results show that the majority of these stakeholders are fully or partially aware of what ICZM is, and are unwilling to pay. However, regression analysis of those willing to pay suggests that promoting an information and education campaign about ICZM may be important if stakeholders' probability of paying is to be increased.Keywords: integrated coastal zone management; contingent valuation method; visitors; sunbathing establishment managers; beach conservationThe authors are most grateful to the referees for their helpful comments and suggestions. EU support through research project INTERREG IIIC, BEACHMED-e, 2006BEACHMED-e, -2008, sub-project ICZM-MED, is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Ing. Carlo Albertazzi and Dott. Roberto Montanari of the Assessorato Sicurezza Territoriale, Difesa del Suolo e della Costa, Protezione Civile of the EmiliaRomagna Regional Council for the materials provided about the regional ICZM and, in particular, for Figures 1 and 2 (by Ing. Mentino Preti). We are indebted to Barbara Zanuttigh for her collaboration in creating Figure 3. The survey instruments and further data description are available on request.

show abstract

“…The valuation applications continued through the 1990s - Turner et al (1995) Production function Maximum range: $4.4 billion Water ecosystem benefits in ten regions in US Ribaudo (1989) Averting behaviour see Silberman et al (1992), Batemann et al (1992), and Hoehn and Loomis (1993) Norton and Southey (1995) calculated the economic value of biodiversity protection in Kenya by assessing the associated opportunity costs in terms of forgone agricultural production, which is estimated to be $203 million. This valued can be compared with $42 million in net financial revenues from wildlife tourism and forestry.…”

Section: Diversity At the Ecosystem Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%