Valuation of environmental improvements in a specially protected marine area: A choice experiment approach in Göcek Bay, Turkey

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 439, Issue , 2012, Pages 291-298

  Can, Özge ^a   Alp, Emre ^a  

^a MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Coastal management; Environmental valuation; G cek Bay; Non market valuation; Stated choice experiment; Turkey

Indexed keywords

COASTAL ENGINEERING; COMMERCE; CONSERVATION; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INVESTMENTS; WATER QUALITY;

COASTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION; NON-MARKET VALUATION; STATED CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; TURKEY;

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84867426706     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: 18791026     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Atkins J.P., Burdon D., Allen J.H. An application of contingent valuation and decision tree analysis to water quality improvements. Mar Pollut Bull 2007, 55:591-602.
2. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann N., Hett T., Hanley N., et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual 2002, Edward Elgar Publishing.
3. Birol E., Koundouri P. Choice experiments informing environmental policy: a European perspective 2008, Edward Elgar Publishing.
4. Blamey R., Gordon J., Chapman R. Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options. The Australian Journal of Agric Resour Econ 1999, 43:337-357.
5. Brau R., Cao D. Uncovering the macrostructure of tourists' preferences. A choice experiment analysis of tourism demand to Sardinia. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper Series 2006.
6. Brouwer R. The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. J Environ Plann Manage 2008, 51:597-614.
7. Del Saz-Salazar S., Hernández-Sancho F., Sala-Garrido R. The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: a comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Sci Total Environ 2009, 407:4574-4583.
8. Eggert H., Olsson B. Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality. Mar Policy 2009, 33:201-206.
9. EPASA Fethiye-Göcek specially protected area, research of socio-economic, historical and cultural values project 2010, Environmental Protection Agency for Special Areas.
10. European Commission EU focus on coastal zones-turning the tide for Europe's coastal zones 2001.
11. European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy, Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000.
12. European Parliament and Council Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe 2002.
13. European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) 2008.
14. GDNAP General Directorate of Natural Assets Protection http://www.ozelcevre.gov.tr/ENG/Anasayfa.html.
15. Glenn H., Wattage P., Mardle S., Rensburg T.V., Grehan a, Foley N. Marine protected areas-substantiating their worth. Mar Policy 2010, 34:421-430.
16. Göcek Culture and Tourism Association http://www.gocek.org.tr/eng/social-life.htm.
17. Hanley N., Adamowicz W., Wright R. Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test. Resour Energ Econ 2005, 27:227-234.
18. Hanley N., Tinch D., Black A. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2006, 33:391-413.
19. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the Water Framework Directive. J Environ Manage 2006, 78:183-193.
20. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied choice analysis: a primer 2005, Cambridge University Press.
21. Hidrue M.K., Parsons G.R., Kempton W., Gardner M.P. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resour Energ Econ 2011, 33:686-705.
22. IMO MARPOL 73/78, International convention for the prevention of pollution from ships 1973/1978.
23. Johnson E.K., Moran D., Vinten a J.a A framework for valuing the health benefits of improved bathing water quality in the River Irvine catchment. J Environ Manage 2008, 87:633-638.
24. Jones N., Sophoulis C., Malesios C. Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. J Socioecon 2008, 37:2478-2491.
25. Kataria M. Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers. Energ Econ 2009, 31:69-76.
26. Kontogianni A., Langford I.H., Papandreou A., Skourtos M.S. Social preferences for improving water quality: an economic analysis of benefits from wastewater treatment. Water Resour Manage 2003, 317-336.
27. Koop G. Introduction to econometrics 2008, Wiley.
28. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J Pol Econ 1966, 74:132-157.
29. Liu X., Wirtz K.W. Managing coastal area resources by stated choice experiments. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci 2010, 86:512-517.
30. Longo A., Markandya A., Petrucci M. The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy. Ecol Econ 2008, 67:140-152.
31. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated choice methods analysis and applications 2000, Cambridge University Press.
32. Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the Water Framework Directive. Sci Total Environ 2010, 408:3990-3997.
33. Mazzanti M. Discrete choice models and valuation experiments-an application to cultural heritage University of Ferrara 2001.
34. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in econometrics 1974, vol. 1:105-142. Academic Press. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
35. METU Determination of marine vehicles carrying capacity of Fethiye Göcek special environmental protection area. Middle East Technical University Department of Civil Engineering 2007, Ocean Engineering Research Center.
36. METU. Monitoring of environmental parameters and determination of carrying capacity by remote sensing for marine protected areas. Middle East Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering, Ocean Engineering Research Center, Geodetics-Geographical Information Technologies, Department of Environmental Engineering; 2011.
37. Nunes P., Blaeij A. Economic assessment of marine quality benefits: applying the use of non-market valuation methods 2005, Springer, Netherlands.
38. Ojeda M., Mayer a, Solomon B. Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecol Econ 2008, 65:155-166.
39. Smyth R.L., Watzin M.C., Manning R.E. Investigating public preferences for managing Lake Champlain using a choice experiment. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:615-623.
40. Thurston H.W., Heberling M.T., Schrecongost A. Environmental economics for watershed restoration 2009, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
41. UNEP Barcelona Convention Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean sea against pollution 1976.
42. Wattage P., Mardle S., Pascoe S. Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives using choice-experiments. Ecol Econ 2005, 55:85-95.
43. Zhai G., Suzuki T. Public willingness to pay for environmental management, risk reduction and economic development: evidence from Tianjin, China. Chin Econ Rev 2008, 19:551-566.
44. Zoppi C. A multicriteria-contingent valuation analysis concerning a coastal area of Sardinia, Italy. Land Use Policy 2007, 24:322-337.