IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v99y2023i1p63-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality over Quantity: Nonmarket Values of Restoring Coastal Dunes in the U.S. Pacific Northwest

Author

Listed:
  • Tu Nguyen
  • David M. Kling
  • Steven J. Dundas
  • Sally D. Hacker
  • Daniel K. Lew
  • Peter Ruggiero
  • Katherine Roy

Abstract

We design a choice experiment to examine public preferences for coastal dune ecosystem restoration in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Dunes are a public good whose natural state is now rare. Respondents are asked to choose among hypothetical projects that vary by project size, restoration quality, recreation access, flooding risk, and cost. Restoration quality is defined as closeness to the natural ecosystem. We find that increasing restoration quality results in significantly higher welfare gains than increasing the size of restoration area. Maintaining recreation access is preferred, and programs with recreation restrictions yield positive willingness to pay only if accompanied by the highest restoration quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Tu Nguyen & David M. Kling & Steven J. Dundas & Sally D. Hacker & Daniel K. Lew & Peter Ruggiero & Katherine Roy, 2023. "Quality over Quantity: Nonmarket Values of Restoring Coastal Dunes in the U.S. Pacific Northwest," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 99(1), pages 63-79.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:99:y:2023:i:1:p:63-79
    Note: DOI: 10.3368/le.040721-0036R
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/99/1/63
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 193-208.
    2. John B. Loomis, 1987. "Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimates to Aggregate Benefit Estimates: Current Practices and Proposed Solutions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(4), pages 396-402.
    3. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    4. Riccardo Scarpa & Raffaele Zanoli & Viola Bruschi & Simona Naspetti, 2013. "Inferred and Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Food Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 165-180.
    5. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    6. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O'Connor, Eamonn, 2021. "Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    7. Aanesen, Margrethe & Armstrong, Claire & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Falk-Petersen, Jannike & Hanley, Nick & Navrud, Ståle, 2015. "Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: Preserving cold-water coral in Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 53-67.
    8. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    9. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    10. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.
    11. Lester, Sarah E. & Costello, Christopher & Halpern, Benjamin S. & Gaines, Steven D. & White, Crow & Barth, John A., 2013. "Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 80-89.
    12. Daniel K. Lew, 2019. "Place of Residence and Cost Attribute Non-Attendance in a Stated Preference Choice Experiment Involving a Marine Endangered Species," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(3), pages 225-245.
    13. Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia, 2016. "Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies across Location and by Habitat," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(2), pages 292-307.
    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. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    2. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.
    3. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Craig E. Landry & Paul Hindsley & Okmyung Bin & Jamie B. Kruse & John C. Whitehead & Ken Wilson, 2011. "Weathering the Storm: Measuring Household Willingness‐to‐Pay for Risk‐Reduction in Post‐Katrina New Orleans," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(4), pages 991-1013, April.
    5. Haotian Cheng & Dayton M. Lambert & Karen L. DeLong & Kimberly L. Jensen, 2022. "Inattention, availability bias, and attribute premium estimation for a biobased product," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 274-288, March.
    6. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    8. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    9. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Miet Maertens, 2020. "Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 798-815, September.
    10. H. Holly Wang & Yu Jiang & Shaosheng Jin & Qiujie Zheng, 2022. "New online market connecting Chinese consumers and small farms to improve food safety and environment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 305-324, December.
    11. Justin Visagie & Dorrit Posel, 2013. "A reconsideration of what and who is middle class in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 149-167, June.
    12. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2012. "Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-94.
    13. Curtis Rollins, 2023. "Investigating cost non‐attendance as a driver of inflated welfare estimates in mixed‐logit models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 921-934, September.
    14. Lee L. Schulz & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2010. "Cow‐Calf Producer Preferences for Voluntary Traceability Systems," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 138-162, February.
    15. Ellis, Jade & Delong, Karen L. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Griffith, Andrew P., 2021. "The Impact of a Visual Cheap Talk Script in an Online Choice Experiment," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 12(01), January.
    16. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
    17. John Lai & Nicole O. Widmar & Courtney Bir, 2020. "Eliciting Consumer Willingness to Pay for Home Internet Service: Closing the Digital Divide in the State of Indiana," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 263-282, June.
    18. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Bauer, Dana Marie, 2002. "Stated Preferences And Length Of Residency In Rural Communities: Are Development And Conservation Values Heterogeneous?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19683, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Lewis, David & Dundas, Steven J. & Kling, David & Lew, Daniel K. & Hacker, Sally, 2018. "Public preferences for natural capital investments that help threatened species: The case of Oregon Coast Coho salmon," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274027, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:uwp:landec:v:99:y:2023:i:1:p:63-79. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.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.