IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i19p8575-d1491390.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Survey of Beachgoers to Estimate Sunscreen Coastal Water Input and Potential Eco-Label Consumption: Contributions to Sustainable Tourism

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina Pallero-Flores

    (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Institute of Marine Science of Andalusia (ICMAN), C. Republica Saharaui, 4, 11519 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain)

  • José L. Oviedo

    (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Institute of Marine Science of Andalusia (ICMAN), C. Republica Saharaui, 4, 11519 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain)

  • Antonio Tovar-Sánchez

    (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Institute of Marine Science of Andalusia (ICMAN), C. Republica Saharaui, 4, 11519 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain)

  • Carlos Moreno

    (Department of Analytical Chemistry, Marine Research Institute (INMAR), Faculty of Marine and Environmental Sciences, University of Cadiz, Campus of Puerto Real, 11510 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain)

  • Araceli Rodríguez-Romero

    (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Institute of Marine Science of Andalusia (ICMAN), C. Republica Saharaui, 4, 11519 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain
    Department of Analytical Chemistry, Marine Research Institute (INMAR), Faculty of Marine and Environmental Sciences, University of Cadiz, Campus of Puerto Real, 11510 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain)

Abstract

The rise of sun and beach tourism has led to concerns about the environmental impact of sunscreens on marine ecosystems. Although the contaminants included in sunscreens are being studied from various perspectives, there are still gaps in the understanding of beachgoers’ habits and sunscreen use, and their awareness of the problems these products can cause. But do we even know how much sunscreen ends up in the ocean when beachgoers apply it? To estimate the amount of sunscreen entering coastal waters during a summer season, a survey ( n = 429) was conducted at two urban beaches in southern Spain (La Caleta and La Bajadilla). It was estimated that 76.3 to 109.3 mL of sunscreen per beachgoer enters the water during the season. For this estimation, it was crucial that we the analyze beachgoers’ behavior statistically. Additionally, our study calculated their willingness to pay (WTP) for eco-labeled sunscreen alternatives. The results showed significant differences between the two sites, with La Bajadilla reporting higher sunscreen usage (11.9 mL vs. 7.9 mL per application) and a greater WTP for eco-labeled sunscreen (€14.2 vs. €11.5). These findings highlight the need for more field studies to better understand the input of sunscreen into coastal waters, which is closely linked to beach use and its social factors. This approach, which considers specific sunscreen input and characterizes beachgoers’ habits, behaviors, and preferences for alternatives, provides valuable insights for decision-makers and may guide future research on the potential impact of sunscreens on marine ecosystems using behavioral data as well as alternative approaches to solving the problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Pallero-Flores & José L. Oviedo & Antonio Tovar-Sánchez & Carlos Moreno & Araceli Rodríguez-Romero, 2024. "A Survey of Beachgoers to Estimate Sunscreen Coastal Water Input and Potential Eco-Label Consumption: Contributions to Sustainable Tourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:19:p:8575-:d:1491390
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/19/8575/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/19/8575/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dogan, Ergun & Zhang, Xibin, 2023. "A nonparametric panel data model for examining the contribution of tourism to economic growth," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    2. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    4. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    3. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    4. Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2012. "Scale-perception bias in the valuation of environmental risks," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(20), pages 2607-2617, July.
    5. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    6. John R. Crooker & Aju J. Fenn, 2008. "Estimating Local Welfare Generated by a Professional Sports Team: An Application to the Minnesota Vikings under Threat of Relocation," Working Papers 0805, University of Central Missouri, Department of Economics & Finance, revised May 2008.
    7. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    8. Tilahun, Mesfin & Mathijs, Erik & Muys, Bart & Vranken, Liesbet & Deckers, Jozef A. & Gebregziabher, Kidanemariam & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Bauer, Hans, 2011. "Contingent valuation analysis of rural households’ willingness to pay for frankincense forest conservation," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116085, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Arana, Jorge E. & Leon, Carmelo J., 2005. "Flexible mixture distribution modeling of dichotomous choice contingent valuation with heterogenity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 170-188, July.
    10. Ghosh, Ranjan & Goyal, Yugank & Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian, 2017. "Are small firms willing to pay for improved power supply? Evidence from a contingent valuation study in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 659-665.
    11. Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2000. "Dichotomous choice contingent valuation probability distributions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), pages 1-20.
    12. García De La Fuente, L. & Colina Vuelta, A., 2004. "Métodos directos e indirectos en la valoración económica de bienes ambientales, aplicación al valor de uso recreativo del Parque Natural de Somiedo," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 22, pages 1-26, Diciembre.
    13. Jorge E. Arana & Carmelo León, 2011. "Scale Perception Bias in the Valuation of Environmental Risks," Post-Print hal-00701866, HAL.
    14. Creel, Michael & Loomis, John, 1997. "Semi-nonparametric Distribution-Free Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 341-358, March.
    15. Carmelo J. León & Jorge E. Araña, 2012. "The Dynamics of Preference Elicitation after an Environmental Disaster: Stability and Emotional Load," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 362-381.
    16. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    17. David Hoyos & Petr Mariel, 2010. "Contingent Valuation: Past, Present and Future," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(4), pages 329-343.
    18. Flores, Nicholas E. & Strong, Aaron, 2007. "Cost credibility and the stated preference analysis of public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 195-205, September.
    19. Wan-Jiun Chen & Jihn-Fa Jan & Chih-Hsin Chung & Shyue-Cherng Liaw, 2022. "Resident Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services in Hillside Forests," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-17, May.
    20. León, Carmelo J. & Araña, Jorge E. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Riera, Pere, 2014. "Heterogeneity and emotions in the valuation of non-use damages caused by oil spills," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 129-139.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:19:p:8575-:d:1491390. 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.