Author
Listed:
- Spencer-Cotton, Alaya
- Kragt, Marit Ellen
- Burton, Michael
Abstract
This is a report from the Kimberley Research Node Project 2.1.2 “Human values and aspirations for coastal waters of the Kimberley” research project funded by the Western Australian Government and administered by the Western Australian Marine Science Institution. The study area is the Kimberley coastline and waters extending from south western part of Eighty Mile Beach to the Northern Territory border. This research supports the management intentions of the State Government to establish a network of marine parks in the State waters along the Kimberley coast. This report presents the findings of an online choice experiment survey conducted with a range of participants and stakeholders. The online survey comprised of two parts, it was a collaboration with Murdoch University. In the choice experiment, respondents were presented with two active management options, and a third ‘no-action’ option. A particular research focus of this choice experiment is the impact of making the choice experiment questions spatially explicit. Researchers were interested in people’s choices for management options that were linked to a specific region (or ‘management zones’) of the Kimberley coast. In this study the Kimberley region was divided into six management zones, determined in consultation with key stakeholders. The management options contained four spatially specific attributes and an associated management cost. The spatially specific attributes were: percentage of State waters zoned as sanctuary areas; number of Aboriginal rangers, level of average recreational facilities in the region, and whether additional development (as defined using a description and photograph) would occur in the region. Mixed logit models were estimated to account for random taste differences across respondents. Interactions between socio-economic variables and the choice attributes were included to account for systematic heterogeneity. Separate models were estimated for each sample as preliminary analysis suggested there is unlikely to be a single unifying model of preferences, Results suggest that hold values and preferences for the choice attributes presented. Focussing on the key management question of providing marine sanctuary zones in State waters, all models confirmed that increasing the area of sanctuary zones is valued by WA residents. Increasing recreation facilities to a relatively high level was generally not valued or valued negatively. This change reduces welfare especially in the four northern more remote zones (Dampier Peninsula, Buccaneer Archipelago, Camden Sound, and North Kimberley). The same pattern emerges for the coastal development attribute. Coastal development was defined as a relatively small change, representing impact on the sense of remoteness. There was a strong aversion to this change, particularly in the northern zones. Although there was some heterogeneity in preferences, the overall picture that emerges from the analysis is that respondents are prepared to pay to increase environmental protection in coastal waters and wish to avoid development along the coast, even where this would improve current public access.
Suggested Citation
Spencer-Cotton, Alaya & Kragt, Marit Ellen & Burton, Michael, 2016.
"Human values and aspirations for coastal waters of the Kimberley: Social values and management preferences using Choice Experiments,"
Working Papers
240693, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Handle:
RePEc:ags:uwauwp:240693
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.240693
Download full text from publisher
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:ags:uwauwp:240693. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aruwaau.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.