Contingent Behavior and Asymmetric Preferences for Baltic Sea Coastal Recreation

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 75, Issue 1, 2020, Pages 49-78

  Bertram, Christine ^a   Ahtiainen, Heini ^b   Meyerhoff, Jürgen ^a,c   Pakalniete, Kristine ^d   Pouta, Eija ^b   Rehdanz, Katrin ^a,e  

^a KIEL INSTITUTE FOR THE WORLD ECONOMY   (Germany)

^b FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^d AKTiiVS Ltd   (Latvia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Asymmetric preferences; Baltic Sea; Climate change; Contingent behavior; Eutrophication; Recreational benefits; Valuation; Water quality

Indexed keywords

EUTROPHICATION; RANDOM PROCESSES; RESOURCE VALUATION; WATER QUALITY;

ASYMMETRIC PREFERENCES; BALTIC SEA; CONTINGENT BEHAVIOR; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS; RANDOM EFFECTS MODEL; RECREATIONAL BENEFITS;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

ALGAL BLOOM; CLIMATE CHANGE; COASTAL ZONE; EUTROPHICATION; RECREATIONAL FACILITY; VALUATION; WATER QUALITY; WELFARE IMPACT;

ATLANTIC OCEAN; BALTIC SEA; FINLAND; GERMANY; LATVIA;

ALGAE;

EID: 85077053430     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: 15731502     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-019-00388-x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Adamowicz V, Swait J, Boxall P, Louviere J, Williams M (1997) Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 32:65–84
2. Ahtiainen H, Artell J, Czajkowski M, Hasler B, Hasselström L, Hyytiäinen K, Meyerhoff J, Smart JC, Söderqvist T, Zimmer K, Khaleeva J (2013) Public preferences regarding use and condition of the Baltic Sea—an international comparison informing marine policy. Mar Policy 42:20–30
3. Ahtiainen H, Artell J, Czajkowski M, Hasler B, Hasselström L, Huhtala A, Meyerhoff J, Smart JC, Söderqvist T, Alemu MH, Angeli D (2014) Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea–a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. J Environ Econ Policy 3(3):278–305
4. Ahtiainen H, Pouta E, Artell J (2015) Modelling asymmetric preferences for water quality in choice experiments with individual-specific status quo alternatives. Water Resour Econ 12:1–13
5. Alberini A, Zanatta V, Rosato P (2007) Combining actual and contingent behavior to estimate the value of sport fishing in the Lagoon of Venice. Ecol Econ 61(2–3):530–541
6. Artell J, Ahtiainen H, Pouta E (2013) Subjective versus objective measure in the valuation of water quality. J Environ Manage 130:288–296
7. Banzhaf MR, Johnson FR, Mathews KE (2001) Opt-out alternatives and anglers’ stated preferences. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, London, pp 157–177
8. Baranzini A, Schaerer C, Thalmann P (2010) Using measured instead of perceived noise in hedonic models. Transp Res Part D 15:473482
9. Barry L, van Rensburg TM, Hynes S (2011) Improving the recreational value of Ireland’s coastal resources: a contingent behavior application. Mar Policy 35:764–771
10. Barton D, Bergland O (2010) Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an ‘individual status quo’ modelling of farm specific water scarcity. Environ Dev Econ 15(3):321–340
11. Bertram C, Rehdanz K (2013) On the environmental effectiveness of the EU marine strategy framework directive. Mar Policy 38:25–40
12. Bhat MG (2003) Application of non-market valuation to the Florida keys marine reserve management. J Environ Manage 67(4):315–325
13. Birol E, Villalba ER, Smale M (2009) Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. Environ Dev Econ 14(4):521–540
14. Blayac T, Hamadé F, Sales J (2016) Valuing the rescreation of a marine and terrestrial nature protected area: a travel cost analysis of Port-Cros national park. Revue d’économie politique 126:127–153
15. Bockstael N, Hanemann WM, Strand I (1984) Measuring the benefits of water quality improvements using recreational demand models. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
16. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2013) Regression analysis of count data, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York
17. Christie M, Hanley N, Hynes S (2007) Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. J For Econ 13:75–102
18. Czajkowski M, Ahtiainen H, Artell J, Budzínski W, Hasler B, Hasselström L, Meyerhoff J, Nõmann T, Semeniene D, Söderqvist T, Tuhkanen H, Lankia T, Vanags A, Zandersen M, Żylicz T, Hanley N (2015) Valuing the commons: an international study on the recreational benefits of the Baltic Sea. J Environ Manage 156:209–2017
19. Domínguez-Torreiro M, Soliño M (2011) Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas. Ecol Econ 70(12):2523–2531
20. du Preez M, Hosking S (2011) The value of the trout fishery at Rhodes, North Eastern Cape, South Africa: a travel cost analysis using count data models. J Environ Plan Manage 54:267–282
21. Egan K, Herriges J (2006) Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample. J Environ Econ Manage 52:567–581
22. Eiswerth ME, Englin J, Fadali E, Shaw WD (2000) The value of water levels in water-based recreation: a pooled revealed preference/contingent behavior model. Water Resour Res 36(4):1079–1086
23. Englin J, Cameron TA (1996) Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data. Environ Resource Econ 7(2):133–147
24. EU (European Union, 2008) 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). Strasbourg, France
25. Eurostat (2017) Purchasing power parities (PPPs), price level indices and real expenditures for ESA 2010 aggregates. Eurostat database. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=prc_ppp_ind&lang=en. Last updated 29 June 2017, Accessed 5 Oct 2017
26. Glenk K (2011) Using local knowledge to model asymmetric preference formulation in willingness to pay for environmental services. J Environ Manage 92(3):531–541
27. Hanley N, Bell D, Alvarez-Farizo B (2003) Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behavior. Environ Resource Econ 24(3):273–285
28. HELCOM (2018) Helcom Map and Data Service, http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/data-maps/. Accessed 21 June 2018
29. Hess S, Rose JM, Hensher DA (2008) Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models. Transp Res Part E 44(5):847–863
30. Hynes S, Greene W (2013) A panel travel cost model accounting for endogenous stratification and truncation: a latent class approach. Land Econ 89(1):177–192
31. Jeon Y, Herriges JA, Kling CL, Downing J (2005) The role of water quality perceptions in modeling lake recreation demand. Iowa State University, Department of Economics. Working Paper 05032
32. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291
33. Kataria M, Bateman I, Christensen T, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Ladenburg J, Levin G, Martinsen L, Nissen C (2012) Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments—a non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. J Environ Manage 94(1):25–33
34. Kosenius AK (2010) Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecol Econ 69(3):528–538
35. Kragt ME, Roebeling PC, Ruijs A (2009) Effects of Great Barrier Reef degradation on recreational reef-trip demand: a contingent behavior approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 53:213–229
36. Lankia T, Neuvonen M, Pouta E (2019) Effects of water quality changes on the recreation benefits of swimming in Finland: combined travel cost and contingent behavior model. Water Resour Econ 25:2–12. 10.1016/j.wre.2017.10.002
37. Lanz B, Provins A, Bateman IJ, Scarpa R, Willis K, Ozdemiroglu E (2010) Investigating willingness to pay—willingness to accept asymmetry in choice experiments. In Hess S, Daly A (Eds) 2010. Choice modelling: the state-of-the-art and the state-of-practice—of proceedings from the inaugural international choice modelling conference, pp 517–542. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK
38. Luisetti T, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (2011) Testing the fundamental assumption of choice experiments: Are values absolute ore relative? Land Econ 87(2):284–296
39. Marsh D, Mkawa L, Scarpa R (2011) Do respondents’ perceptions of the status quo matter in non-market valuation with choice experiments? An application to New Zealand freshwater streams. Sustainability 3:1593–1615
40. Martínez-Espiñeira R, Amoako-Tuffour J (2009) Multi-destination and multi-purpose trip effects in the analysis of the demand for trips to a remote recreational site. Environ Manage 43:1146–1161
41. Masiero L, Hensher DA (2010) Analyzing loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity in a freight transport choice experiment. Transp Res Part A 44(5):349–358
42. Nieminen E, Ahtiainen H, Lagerkvist CJ, Oinonen S (2019) The economic benefits of achieving Good Environmental Status in the Finnish marine waters of the Baltic Sea. Mar Policy 99:181–189
43. Norton D, Hynes S (2018) Estimating the benefits of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Atlantic Member States: a spatial value transfer approach. Ecol Econ 150:82–94
44. OECD (2018) Hours worked: average annual hours actually worked, OECD Employment and Labour Market Statistics (database), 10.1787/data-00303-en. Accessed 21 June 2018
45. Pakalniete K, Aigars J, Czajkowski M, Strake S, Zawojska E, Hanley N (2017) Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 584:29–40
46. Rolfe J, Dyack B (2011) Valuing recreation in the Coorong, Australia, with travel cost and contingent behavior models. Econ Rec 87(277):282–293
47. Sagebiel J, Schwartz C, Rhozyel M, Rajmis S, Hirschfeld J (2016) Economic valuation of Baltic marine ecosystem services: blind spots and limited consistency. ICES J Mar Sci 73(4):991–1003
48. Söderqvist T, Eggert H, Olsson B, Soutukorva A (2005) Economic valuation for sustainable development in the Swedish coastal zone. AMBIO J Hum Environ 34(2):169–175
49. Soutukorva A (2005) The value of improved water quality—a random utility model of recreation in the Stockholm Archipelago. Sustainable Coastal Zone Management Programme, project 1.2.1, subproject on benefits, Stockholm, Sweden
50. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference—dependent model. Q J Econ 106(4):1039–1061
51. Vesterinen J, Pouta E, Huhtala A, Neuvonen M (2010) Impacts of changes in water quality on recreation behavior and benefits in Finland. J Environ Manage 91:984–994