The social costs of marine litter along European coasts

Ocean and Coastal Management

Volumn 138, Issue , 2017, Pages 38-49

  Brouwer, Roy ^a   Hadzhiyska, Dariya ^b   Ioakeimidis, Christos ^c   Ouderdorp, Hugo ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b Denkstatt Bulgaria Ltd   (Bulgaria)

^c INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY   (Greece)

^d VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Beach recreation; Choice experiment; Europe; Marine litter; Social costs

Indexed keywords

BEACHES; COSTS;

BEACH RECREATIONS; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; EUROPE; MARINE LITTER; SOCIAL COST;

COASTAL ZONES;

BEACH; CLEANUP; COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL TAX; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT; VOLUNTARY APPROACH; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ATLANTIC OCEAN; BLACK SEA; EUROPE; MEDITERRANEAN SEA; NORTH SEA;

EID: 85009273147     PISSN: 09645691     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.01.011     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Beharry-Borg, N., Scarpa, R., Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors. Ecol. Econ. 69:5 (2010), 1124–1139.
2. Ben-Akiva, M.E., Lerman, S.R., Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. 1985, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.
3. Bhat, C.R., Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp. Res. Part B 35 (2001), 677–693.
4. Birdir, S., Ünzal, Ö., Birdir, K., Williams, A.T., Willingness to pay as an economic instrument for coastal tourism: cases from Mersin, Turkey. Tour. Manag. 36 (2013), 279–283.
5. Blakemore, F., Williams, A., British tourists' valuation of a Turkish beach using contingent valuation and travel cost methods. J. Coast. Res. 24:6 (2008), 1469–1480.
6. Bouwman, H., Evans, S.W., Cole, N., Choong Kwet Yive, N.S., Kylin, H., The flip-or-flop boutique: marine debris on the shores of St Brandon's rock, an isolated tropical atoll in the Indian Ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 114 (2016), 58–64.
7. BRO, Bezoekersonderzoek Scheveningen Bad en Kijkduin. Report numbers: 203X00291.039307_4 and 5, 2008, BRO, Boxtel, the Netherlands 12 November 2008.
8. Brouwer, R., Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J., Turner, R.K., A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg. Environ. Change 1:1 (1999), 47–57.
9. Brouwer, R., et al. Improving value transfer through socio-economic adjustments in a multi-country choice experiment of water conservation alternatives. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 59 (2015), 1–21.
10. Brouwer, R., et al. Socio-economic Assessment of the Costs of Marine Litter. CleanSea Deliverable 4.11. 2015, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
11. Carson, R.T., Grooves, T., Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37 (2007), 181–210.
12. Collins, J.P., Vossler, C.A., Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 58 (2009), 226–235.
13. Cyclus, Benchmark strandbeheer schoon. Verdiepingsanalyse: 10 stranden nader met elkaar vergeleken. June 2011, Cyclusmanagement Accessed through: www.kenniswijzerzwerfafval.nl/download_document/193.
14. Eurostat, Database. 2015 Accessed through: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
15. ECORYS, Schoonmaakkosten KRM. Kostenkentallen voor opruimen zwerfafval langs de Nederlandse stranden. Ecorys report, 2012, Ecorys Nederland, BV, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
16. Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., De Vrees, L., Marine litter within the European marine strategy framework directive. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70:6 (2013), 1055–1064.
17. Ghermandi, A., Nunes, P.A.L.D., A global map of coastal recreation values: results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 1–15.
18. Greene, W.H., Econometric Analysis. sixth ed., 2007, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
19. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer. 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
20. KIMO, Economic Impacts of Marine Litter. 2010, KIMO International September 2010.
21. Kordella, S., Geraga, M., Papatheodorou, G., Fakiris, E., Mitropoulou, I.M., Litter composition and source contribution for 80 beaches in Greece, Eastern Mediterranean: a nationwide voluntary clean-up campaign. Aqua. Ecosyst. Health & Manag. 16:1 (2013), 111–118.
22. Krinsky, I., Robb, A.L., On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 68 (1986), 715–719.
23. Laglbauer, B.J.L., Melo Franco-Santos, R., Andreu-Cazenave, M., Brunelli, L., Papadatou, M., Palatinus, A., Grego, M., Deprez, T., Macrodebris and microplastics from beaches in Slovenia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89 (2014), 356–366.
24. Lancaster, K., Modern Consumer Theory. 1991, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
25. Lopes da Silva, M., Vieira de Araújo, F., Oliveira Castro, R., Souza Sales, A., Spatial-temporal analysis of marine debris on beaches of Niterói, RJ, Brazil: Itaipu and Itacoatiara. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 92 (2015), 233–236.
26. Lindhjem, H., 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. J. For. Econ. 12 (2007), 251–277.
27. Loomis, J., Santiago, L., Economic valuation of beach quality improvements: comparing incremental attribute values estimated from two stated preference valuation methods. Coast. Manag. 41:1 (2013), 75–86.
28. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. Marin, V., Palmisanib, F., Ivaldia, R., Dursib, R., Fabianoa, M., Users' perception analysis for sustainable beach management in Italy. Ocean Coast. Manag. 52:5 (2009), 268–277.
30. McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Zarembka, P., (eds.) Frontiers in Econometrics, 1974, Academic Press, New York.
31. Mouat, J., Lopez Lozano, R., Bateson, H., Economic Impacts of Marine Litter. 2010, KIMO September 2010.
32. Munari, C., Corbau, C., Simeoni, U., Mistri, M., Marine litter on Mediterranean shores: analysis of composition, spatial distribution and sources in north-western. Adriatic beaches. Waste Manag. 49 (2016), 483–490.
33. Ocean Conservancy, Turning the Tide on Trash. 2014 Accessed through: http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/marine-debris/icc-data-2014.pdf.
34. Ocean Conservancy, 30th Anniversary International Coastal Cleanup. 2016, Ocean Conservancy, Washington DC.
35. Ofiara, D.D., Brown, B., Assessment of economic losses to recreational activities from 1988 marine pollution events and assessment of economic losses from long-term contamination of fish within the New York Bight to New Jersey. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38:11 (1999), 990–1004.
36. Oosterhuis, F., Papyrakis, E., Boteler, B., Economic instruments and marine litter control. Ocean Coast. Manag. 102:A (2014), 47–54.
37. OSPAR, Marine Litter in the North-East Atlantic Region: Assessment and Priorities for Response., 2009 Report OSPAR Commission, London, UK (2009).
38. Östberg, K., Hasselström, L., Håkansson, C., Non-market valuation of the coastal environment – uniting political aims, ecological and economic knowledge. J. Environ. Manag. 110 (2010), 166–178.
39. Poe, G.L., Giraud, K.L., Loomis, J.B., Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87:2 (2005), 353–365.
40. Rees, G., Pond, K., Coast Watch UK 1995 Survey Report. Sponsored by the Daily Mirror., 1996, Published by Farnborough College of Technology, Farnborough, Hampshire, England ISBN 1-899080-50-3, 64 pp.
41. Ryan, G.P., Moore, J.C., van Franeker, A.J., Moloney, L.C., Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 364 (2009), 1999–2012.
42. Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Wallner-Kersanach, M., Fillmann, G., Influence of socio-economic characteristics of beach users on litter generation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48:9–10 (2005), 742–752.
43. Smith, K.V., Zhang, X., Palmquist, R.B., Marine debris, beach quality and non-market values. Environ. Resour. Econ. 10:3 (1997), 223–247.
44. Swait, J., Louviere, J., The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J. Mark. Res. 30:3 (1993), 305–314.
45. Ten Brink, P., Lutchman, I., Bassi, S., Speck, S., Sheavly, S., Register, K., Woolaway, C., Guidelines on the Use of Market-based Instruments to Address the Problem of Marine Litter. 2009, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium, and Sheavly Consultants, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.
46. Tinch, R., Mathieu, L., Soutukorva, A., Interwies, E., Brouwer, R., Tinch, D., Gorlitz, S., Raatikainen, N., Recreational Benefits of Reductions of Litter in the Marine Environment., 2012 Report for Rijkswaterstaat Waterdienst, November 15, 2012. Available at: www.noordzeeloket.nl.
47. Train, K.E., Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
48. UNEP, Marine Litter: a Global Challenge. 2009, UNEP, Nairobi 232 pp.