IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i2p280-d1579888.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing the Valuation of Cultural Ecosystem Services Provided by Coastal Beaches Through Economic and Biophysical Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Chi-Ok Oh

    (Graduate School of Culture, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea)

  • Namhee Kim

    (Cultural Convergence Research Institute, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea)

  • Yoonja Kang

    (Department of Ocean Integrated Science, Chonnam National University, Yeosu 59626, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

This study evaluates cultural ecosystem services (CESs) provided by coastal beaches in Korea using two valuation methods: choice experiments (CEs) and the energy method (EM). CESs, which include non-material benefits like recreation and esthetic enjoyment, are difficult to quantify through traditional market-based approaches. The CE method estimates individuals’ willingness to pay (WTP), offering an economic valuation, while the EM calculates the energy inputs required to sustain CESs, providing a biophysical perspective. The study compares CES values from both methods across 266 beaches in Korea. CES values from the CE method ranged from 6 million Korean won (KRW) (USD 5400) to KRW 93 billion (USD 84 million), while the EM yielded values between KRW 40 million (USD 36,000) and KRW 112 billion (USD 101 million). The EM generally yields higher valuations, particularly for rural beaches with fewer visitors, where ecological contributions dominate. In contrast, the CE values are closely aligned with the EM results for urban beaches, where human preferences and ecological inputs converge. These findings highlight the value of integrating economic and biophysical perspectives to provide policymakers with comprehensive data for balancing economic development and ecological conservation in coastal management. By adopting a dual-method approach, this research provides policymakers with concrete insights into optimizing resource allocation, prioritizing conservation efforts for less-visited rural beaches, and supporting sustainable coastal development tailored to regional characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Chi-Ok Oh & Namhee Kim & Yoonja Kang, 2025. "Enhancing the Valuation of Cultural Ecosystem Services Provided by Coastal Beaches Through Economic and Biophysical Methods," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:2:p:280-:d:1579888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/2/280/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/2/280/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    2. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    3. Dias, Vitor & Belcher, Ken, 2015. "Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 35-44.
    4. Cecilia Håkansson & Katarina Östberg & Göran Bostedt, 2016. "Estimating distributional effects of environmental policy in Swedish coastal environments - a walk along different dimensions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 49-78, March.
    5. McDonough, Kelsey & Hutchinson, Stacy & Moore, Trisha & Hutchinson, J.M. Shawn, 2017. "Analysis of publication trends in ecosystem services research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 82-88.
    6. Jurgen Meyerhoff & Alexandra Dehnhardt & Volkmar Hartje, 2010. "Take your swimsuit along: the value of improving urban bathing sites in the metropolitan area of Berlin," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(1), pages 107-124.
    7. Jean-Baptiste Marre & Luke Brander & Olivier Thébaud & Jean Boncoeur & Sean Pascoe & Louisa Coglan & Nicolas Pascal, 2015. "Non-market use and non-use values for preserving ecosystem services over time: A choice experiment application to coral reef ecosystems in New Caledonia," Post-Print hal-01198831, HAL.
    8. Dou, Yuehan & Liu, Mengxiao & Bakker, Martha & Yu, Xiubo & Carsjens, Gerrit J. & De Groot, Rudolf & Liu, Junguo, 2021. "Influence of human interventions on local perceptions of cultural ecosystem services provided by coastal landscapes: Case study of the Huiwen wetland, southern China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Jean-Baptiste Marre & Olivier Thebaud & Sean Pascoe & Sarah Jennings & Jean Boncoeur & Louisa Coglan, 2016. "Is economic valuation of ecosystem services useful to decision-makers? Lessons learned from Australian coastal and marine management," Post-Print hal-02152556, HAL.
    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. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    2. Namhee Kim & Miju Kim & Sangkwon Lee & Chi-Ok Oh, 2023. "Comparing Stakeholders’ Economic Values for the Institution of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Pascoe, Sean & Doshi, Amar & Kovac, Mladen & Austin, Angelica, 2019. "Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combining multi-criteria methods with choice experiments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Aryal, Kishor & Ojha, Bhuwan Raj & Maraseni, Tek, 2021. "Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    5. Lingmei Han & Jianqiang You & Jiening Meng, 2023. "Environmental Value Assessment of Plastic Pollution Control: A Study Based on Evidence from a Survey in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Ready, Richard & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2019. "How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 375-386.
    7. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    8. Yoo, James & Simonit, Silvio & Connors, John P. & Kinzig, Ann P. & Perrings, Charles, 2014. "The valuation of off-site ecosystem service flows: Deforestation, erosion and the amenity value of lakes in Prescott, Arizona," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 74-83.
    9. Jerrod Penn & Wuyang Hu & Linda Cox & Lara Kozloff, 2016. "Values for Recreational Beach Quality in Oahu, Hawaii," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 47-62.
    10. Moonsammy, Stephan & Boman, Mattias & Ramdhanie, Vidwatee & Renn-Moonsammy, Donna-Marie, 2024. "State-of-the art valuation of wetland ecosystem services in Small Island Developing States: A systematic review with an emphasis on future research needs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    11. Han-Shen Chen, 2020. "The Construction and Validation of a Sustainable Tourism Development Evaluation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    12. Remme, Roy P. & Meacham, Megan & Pellowe, Kara E. & Andersson, Erik & Guerry, Anne D. & Janke, Benjamin & Liu, Lingling & Lonsdorf, Eric & Li, Meng & Mao, Yuanyuan & Nootenboom, Christopher & Wu, Tong, 2024. "Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    13. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    14. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    15. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    16. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    17. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    18. Marre, Jean-Baptiste & Billé, Raphaël, 2019. "A demand-driven approach to ecosystem services economic valuation: Lessons from Pacific island countries and territories," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    19. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:2:p:280-:d:1579888. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.