IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wuk/cemawp/127..html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Recreational benefits of coastal protection: a case study

Author

Listed:
  • Whitmarsh, D.
  • Northen, J.
  • Jaffry, S.

Abstract

In the UK, cost-benefit analysis of coastal protection schemes that expect to receive grant assistance is required by H.M. Government. A recommended procedure for evaluating the recreational benefits of coastal protection is based on a variant of contingent valuation methodology (CVM), and involves the estimation of the gains and losses in the value of enjoyment by beach users associated with different project scenarios (including the option of allowing erosion to occur). The paper reports the results of a study which applies this approach to coastal protection at an important UK seaside resort. It focusses on the suitability of the value of enjoyment (VOE) elicitation method, and stresses the need to test the validity of the results from all such studies that apply this approach.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Whitmarsh, D. & Northen, J. & Jaffry, S., 1997. "Recreational benefits of coastal protection: a case study," Discussion Papers 127., Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources.
    • Handle: RePEc:wuk:cemawp:127.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rodella, Ilaria & Corbau, Corinne & Simeoni, Umberto & Utizi, Kizzi, 2017. "Assessment of the relationship between geomorphological evolution, carrying capacity and users' perception: Case studies in Emilia-Romagna (Italy)," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-22.
    2. Markandya, Anil & Arnold, S. & Cassinelli, Mariaester & Taylor, Tim J., 2009. "Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean: Legal and Economic Perspectives," Sustainable Development Papers 54290, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Halkos, George, 2011. "Economic valuation of coastal zone quality improvements," MPRA Paper 35395, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Bénédicte Rulleau & Jeoffrey Dehez & Patrick Point, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(3), pages 291-310.
    5. Lee, Gunwoo & Kim, Soo-Yeob & Lee, Min-Kyu, 2015. "Economic evaluation of vessel traffic service (VTS): A contingent valuation study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 149-154.
    6. Wilson, Amanda, 2010. "Coastal planning in North Shore City, New Zealand: Developing responsible coastal erosion policy," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59260, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2012. "Determinants of willingness to pay for coastal zone quality improvement," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 391-399.
    8. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 92(3).

    More about this item

    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:wuk:cemawp:127.. 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: WoPEc Project (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepbsuk.html .

    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.