Choice Paper for next Thursday
Tuesday we will talk about chapter 4.
Please read this paper for Thursday:
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0964569116302150/1-s2.0-S0964569116302150-main.pdf?_tid=112d842c-082e-11e8-aadd-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1517585638_360ec915717ed14d266008c97ef24d32
Please read this paper for Thursday:
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0964569116302150/1-s2.0-S0964569116302150-main.pdf?_tid=112d842c-082e-11e8-aadd-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1517585638_360ec915717ed14d266008c97ef24d32
To me, the value of this paper lies in its sound model, especially given the difficulties that come with measuring the value of non-market goods. Rather than gather data through survey questions that directly asked a respondent his/her willingness to pay for various coastal and marine characteristics, the paper employed a choice experiment as its valuation method, in which responders were asked to state their preferences across different bundles of qualities. The latter of the two techniques is the preferable method for estimating willingness to pay for the following reason- It is difficult for people to place a monetary value on public goods, or goods that they don't normally have to pay for. We aren't used to associating such goods with a dollar value. This holds true for the various coastal amenities being examined in the paper (beach width, beach cleanliness, etc). In all, I was impressed with the statistical methods used in this paper.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is somewhat obvious that there is a positive relationship between the marginal willingness to pay of tourists and the cleanliness of beaches, I thought the way in which the author laid out his empirical work to be quite interesting. His econometrics were a bit tricky, as it has been some time since I've seen a logit model, but the fact that his theoretical model was backed entirely by material covered in class made this section of the paper easier to internalize. In terms of the higher willingness to pay for consumers, I am curious how this cost can be internalized most effectively. It seems to me, or at least in my own personal opinion, that a tourist would be more likely to spend 100 extra dollars on airfare and/or lodging in order access cleaner beaches, rather than paying a $100 admission fee to the beach in order to access it. It is interesting psychologically to think about the fact that additional money spent to avoid beach trash can be viewed differently depending on the means by which it is charged.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this paper on visitors’ willingness to pay for coastal attributes to Barbados, I had small issue when the authors talked about implementing trash cleanup fees for beach visitors. If people are paying a fee to use a beach and to help pay for the trash to be cleaned up, wouldn’t that make them feel more justified in leaving behind trash? Obviously this would not apply to everyone; however, a trash cleanup fee may incentivize people to leave more trash behind if they are far from trashcans. While reading about how the quantity of trash per square meter of beach was being taken into account for, I was slightly confused as to why the size of the litter was not touched on. Larger and more visible items that stick out should be reflected upon as well. To make this a simpler formula, you could measure the quantity of trash on a beach in surface area that the garbage occupies per square meter. Another question I had was, why would tourists litter at all if they truly desire a clean, trash free beach environment? Can the effort of cleaning up after oneself be monetized? Would that cost be the same as the proposed beach cleanup fee?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point on how examining the size of litter and not just the quantity can benefit this study. Perhaps tourists are, on average, more sensitive to one large piece of litter than two small pieces. Regarding your question on why tourists litter at all if they desire a trash-free environment, I think for some, it’s more convenient to litter and as many are on vacation here, some simply don’t care. It also shows how although tourists may prefer a certain beach condition, they may not be willing to actually work to achieve those conditions and would rather rely on cleanup teams. These questions would be a beneficial addition to the survey because it can reveal the primary stated reasons of the tourists’ behavior.
DeleteThis situation in Barbados is also a good opportunity to study the intersection of economics and psychology, specifically the impact of descriptive and injunctive social norms. A paper by Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius (2008) examined the effectiveness of different wording on signs in hotel rooms (https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/118359.pdf). These signs were intended to encourage visitors to reuse their towels. They found that reuse rates were highest when guests were told that most other guests also chose to join in the environmental conservation program by reusing their towels. Wording that incorporated descriptive norms like “the majority of guests in this room reuse their towels” was also more effective than just listing environmental benefits.
It would be useful for further studies, if they haven’t already been done yet, to see how this can be applied to the Barbados beaches. For example, over a course of several weeks, researchers can observe how anti-litter signs ranging from “Keep our beach clean” or “No littering” to more normative “We don’t litter, and you shouldn’t either” affect litter amounts. This is beyond the goal of the original paper by Schuhmann et al, but it would be interesting to see whether tourists’ willingness to pay changes based on the presence of different anti-littering signs and litter amounts.
The most compelling aspect of this paper was the authors’ finding of the “nonlinear impact on utility of changes in litter.” Essentially, the authors found that there is a threshold of littering that, once reached, makes it so additional litter does not take away as much utility as adding litter to what would be considered a “clean” beach. The nonlinear nature of the utility curve is definitely expected when given the context of a pristine beach being tainted versus what is seen as an already dirty beach just becoming dirtier. Unfortunately, I was not too impressed with the conclusion the authors derived from this observation. Namely, they suggest that “beach cleanup efforts not only be limited to beaches where litter is most apparent” while also stating that “beaches with exceptionally high amounts of litter should (also) be targeted for cleanup efforts.” I would have thought that conclusion was pretty self-evident, and would have appreciated a more nuanced policy suggestion considering the finite beach cleanup resources Barbados has.
ReplyDeleteI also found this difference between pristine beaches and beaches filled with litter interesting. The authors mention that the Caribbean has a higher cost on average than other beach-oriented destinations and therefore could be described as luxury vacation locations. I wonder if this "nonlinear impact on utility of changes in litter" would hold at vacation destinations that are less costly and visited by those of a different socioeconomic status. Based on the author's remarks feels easy to assume that those surveyed in Barbados are of a higher income status. I am curious if this study were to be carried out at lower cost vacation destination would the results be similar? Would the litter threshold increase because lower income individuals have a preference for less expensive lodging over less litter? What about in an area that has uniform litter distribution across its beaches? There are certainly some areas where all beaches on average have more litter than other areas. Is the litter threshold higher there?
DeleteThis paper explores a vital problem for Barbados. As mentioned in the paper, tourism is a central part of their economy. However, this tourism is almost entirely reliant on their beaches and marine ecosystems. The main draw of Barbados and the Caribbean in general are their superior beaches compared to other options. If Barbados were to lose some of these characteristics, then its lure would diminish and tourism industry and economy would severely suffer. Therefore, the need for preservation is clearly evident. While other beaches may be able to serve as substitutes for the individuals visiting the island, they would not provide the same economic benefit for Barbados. I wonder if any time series studies have been done on similar beaches looking at the correlation between beach improvement or decline and tourism?
ReplyDeleteThis paper effectively describes the CE framework and offers a clear and concise literature review that helps the reader understand the basics of CE. I was impressed with the overview description of past research surrounding sustainable development in the coastal zone and the authors clearly state what they are contributing the literature: a valuation of beach width, litter, and distance of lodging from beach. The authors walk us through the construction of their model and reference previous studies when necessary which allows the reader to understand and follow their thinking process. I was most intrigued by the results comparing the willingness to pay for beachfront lodging versus the cleanliness of the beach. While we can easily imagine that beachfront lodging and a clean beach is most desirable, it is important to understand which is estimated to have more value when determining policies. The results stress the importance of a litter free beach. This makes me curious of comparing research between travelers to remote Caribbean destinations versus tourists to highly commercialized destinations such as Miami Beach. It it important for policymakers and business owners in Barbados and other islands to be aware of what exactly makes their destination so desirable. The competitive advantage of these more remote islands may be the image of being untouched and less commercialized indicating the need to invest in beach cleanups and ensure the optimal level of development and visitation.
ReplyDeleteI also thought this comparison between the winningness to pay for beachfront lodging vs cleanliness of a beach was interesting. The results indicate a clean beach is extremely important in attracting tourism. The author makes an important point- cleanliness and conservation of the environment are important to ensuring high levels of tourism, and high levels of tourism often cause pollution and destruction of beaches. Ironically, tourists often destroy the very things they desire. This made me think of the Solow paper we read last Thursday (not to harp on this paper), but Professor Casey mentioned the importance of investing the income generated from using or selling a natural resource to improve the environment, maybe through the improvement of technology or another way. In order to be sustainable in this case, the income generated from allowing tourists to come and use the beaches must be used and invested to either clean and protect the beaches or to invest in some sort of technology or innovation that will help conserve the resources. It seems like tourists actually incentivize this sort of sustainability because they generate income for countries, and since they value the condition of the beaches, the countries will likely do what they can to keep them clean.
DeleteThe relationship between the quality of the coastal and marine environment, visitor satisfaction and willingness to pay for accommodation struck me as obvious, but the choice experiment brought to light some of the specific attributes to help break down what drives willingness to pay for tourists in Barbados. Litter as a driver of willingness to visit a beach made sense, but I found issue with the authors’ claim that the results from the study in Barbados could be used for cost-benefit analysis or benefits transfer applications in other locations. I think the structuring of this study should be applied to other beaches in the Caribbean, but findings may differ. For instance, someone on a beach in San Juan, Puerto Rico may place more value on the width of a beach if there are skyscraper hotels right next to the beach versus one with only palm trees in sight. Each environment is different, and identifying the issues affecting willingness to pay the most can help tourism-dependent countries approach issues of how to maximize the value of their resources. As an example, beach width is an interesting factor in this study because of the high erosion levels present in Barbados, which may present a longer-term issue for the country’s destination beaches.
ReplyDeleteThis paper comes to conclusions that seem to be fairly intuitive. Of course cleaner and wider beaches are going to attract more tourists, and people would naturally like to stay in a place closer to the water. The importance of the results is not in these broad findings though, the importance is in the thresholds that the paper discovers. For Barbados, it is very helpful to know that past a certain width, tourists no longer care about how wide the beach is. It is also good for Barbados to know what level of litter turns a beach from clean to dirty, and how much tourists would be willing to pay to avoid beach litter. For the policy recommendation, I think that a small tax would work much better than a fee. As Andrew stated earlier, a beach fee may lead to some people feeling more justified in leaving litter behind. I believe that a tax would not have this same effect because a tax is less obvious to a tourist than a fee, and even if they are both similar amounts the tourists are less likely to feel justified in littering through an ambiguous tax.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this research suggests that visitors place considerable economic value on the quality of coastal and marine resources and are willing to pay more for high-quality beaches, clear water and the presence of healthy coral reefs and other marine life, I am not sure to what extent this will actually contribute to the conservation of these resources in the long run because of the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1. Environmental degradation occurs slowly and over long periods of time. Since visitors are not always able to see these changes in environmental quality, they might not fully understand the severity of the problem. Consequently, they will be less inclined to pay the preservation fees.
2. I am assuming that most visitors are one-time visitors and are more likely to free-ride and not pay the fees especially if they have no intention of going to Barbados in the future. I am curious to see data on how many of the visitors are returning visitors and how many are first-timers.
With that being said, I believe that a sustainable way of preserving Barbado's resources without running the risk of hurting the country's tourism sector is to impose fees not on individual visitors but rather on foreign property-owners in Barbados. When I was in Placencia (Belize), a lot of foreigners (especially Americans) owned high-end properties not far away from the touristy beaches. Targeting these property owners would provide better outcomes in the long run since they are directly affected by this issue and would therefore be more willing to pay for the preservation of Barbados's coastal and marine resources.
I agree with Zainab's concern over visitors' aptness to contribute to clean-up given their short-term associations with the area. In addition to having tourists to accept the financial burden of beach clean-up, I expect that presenting Table 5 data, indicating that visitors to Barbados are willing to pay more for lodging near litter-free beaches, to hotels and other lodging services could incentives them to clean the beaches. Perhaps they could form alliance among the lodging establishments on the island (a benefit of understanding the trade-offs btw beach cleanliness and local). This could be especially advantageous for hotels trying to compensate for longer walks to the beach (6-8 minutes or longer). Another approach would be sharing the data indicating litter clean-up is valued highest per unit for relatively clean beaches. This could persuade lodging near beaches, of all levels of quality to act to maintain cleanliness (no matter if the quality is deemed tolerable).
DeleteOnly one unit into introductory statistics I had a difficult time following this paper. Naturally, I had more success analyzing the summary between willingness to pay and quality of the environment given at the end of the paper. I appreciated that the paper discussed the study in the context of the global financial crisis and the effects of tourism as a whole as well as the Caribbean specifically. The struggling climate for tourism supported the significance of the study.
I overall was impressed with the methodology for the choice experiment in this paper, as the valuation of non-market goods is difficult to assess upfront. Like we discussed in class, it is inefficient to ask a consumer to directly place a monetary value on environmental resources. The methodology avoids any bias by not directly asking the consumer to make a trade-off between environmental quality and money. Instead, by asking to make a choice between two options with a series of attributes, it better simulates a market and provides a familiar process to consumers. Each attribute is relevant (i.e. lodging distance, litter, and price) and the ranges of attributes are determined from previous data. Thus through the choice experiment, consumers indirectly value these attributes. Then afterwards, the study can statistically determine the value of each attribute. Although the general findings seemed intuitive, the empirical results found in this study are valuable. A definitive price is important to policy makers when allocating money to improve different attributes.
ReplyDeleteI found this experiment and the authors’ argument refreshing in in light of my previous exposure to pollution policy. It seems the discussion around pollution is most commonly framed in terms of its impact on environmental quality vis a vis ecosystem health. I enjoyed viewing the problem from an economic angle. The argument that pollution discourages tourism and is therefore economic inefficient provides an incentive for environmental protection that is directly compelling to those associated with its source (in this case, hotels) without detracting from more altruistic claims to environmental preservation and restoration.
ReplyDeleteFor class discussion, I’m interested in the different strengths/weaknesses of the different logic specifications.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe choice experiment framework appears to be a relatively accurate way to gauge preferences and willingness-to-pay when valuing coastal amenities, primarily through its usage of alternatives to derive willingness-to-pay figures. The issues with stated preference that we discussed in class on Tuesday appear to be well-addressed by the choice experiment framework, because choosing between alternatives allows us to see how individuals would actually act on the margin and then derive a willingness to pay based on these decisions. This method is likely the closest we can get to actually being in someone's brain as they decide which vacation spot best fits their preferences and budget constraint.
ReplyDeleteIt was nice to see the revealed and stated preference methods we had discussed in class played out in this experiment. I found the author’s methodology especially interesting and effective. If tourists were confronted with the option to pay a fee for a cleaner beach, in reality, they would likely choose not to. But by creating a choice experiment with varying attributes, the author was able to simulate the market in a realistic manner, and revealed the correlation between willingness to pay and cleaner beaches. It was most interesting to see how the experiment resulted in willingness to pay values for each of the attributes. We have often discussed how hard it is to place monetary value on things that are intangible or that don’t fall into the “goods & services” realm. The values that the author discovered for beach litter, beach width, proximity to beach, and lodging type are figures that could be instrumental in creating better policy for tourism.
ReplyDeleteThis reading was extremely interesting to me because of how it tied in the models and theories we have been learning in class to a real life example. The application of the travel cost method and hedonic practice were interesting and I enjoyed seeing how they work in a real life study. Something that stood out was the importance that beach width was given through out the paper and then unlike trash, there was no definite conclusion because “A true understanding of ecosystem importance of wider beaches requires additional search into these components of value.” Although I think that statement was great in concluding the findings, I liked how there was a very concrete answer for the effects of trash on beaches and tourism.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through the paper a couple of questions came to mind. First, why use a CE experiment instead of one of the reveled preference models? I would think that reveled preference studies are more accurate since they observe the actual price people pay, and with the variety of hotels in Caribbean destinations, it seems like it would be possible to find hotels that only vary when it comes to a single attribute; like beach litter. My second question, is more of a comment really, that I don't really understand how the grouping of different aspects of a vacation (mathematically speaking) revealed exactly the willingness to pay for a marginal difference in one of those aspects. I'm sure that description was in the paper, but that part must have gone over my head a bit so I'm hopeful we'll discuss that further in class. Overall, I thought the paper was interesting and logical. Some of the individual findings were pretty funny, like how Canadians really hate litter, but I thought the conclusions about preferences for beach width, proximity, and cleanliness were in line with my expectations. Finally I found the observation at the end about how our improved knowledge of how people value the trade offs between particular amenities can help inform beach area development to be particularly interesting.
ReplyDeleteMy main question while reading was the same as Sloan's first question. I feel as if a revealed preference model rather than a CE experiment could have potentially produced more accurate results. Collecting data on average guests per night, and price per room, combined with information on the hotel's amenities such as proximity to the beach, could have resulted in a robust data set. This data set could have then been analyzed to garner more empirical findings with a much larger number of observations, and would also not be subject to the wealth of issues that arise with survey bias.
DeleteIt was interesting and surprising to read that there exists relatively little scholarly literature on the economic implications of beach litter. It seems intuitive that the marine tourism industry, on which beach cleanliness greatly depends, would have at some point diverted resources in order to assess the data. Nevertheless, I found the discussion of tradeoffs in the willingness to pay (WTP) section particularly interesting. It made perfect sense that travelers would be willing to lodge some distance from the water in return for beach cleanliness. It occurred to me that from the perspective of a developer, who would conceivably be interested in the long term viability of the coastal area in Barbados, developing just a small distance away from the water might not necessarily reduce profits if the conditions were right. Beachfront cleanup efforts would likely offset any losses from the reduced premium a hotel would charge for its greater distance to the water. I don’t know much about the costs involved, but it seems like collecting liter would be fairly inexpensive. The article points out that fees or tourism taxes could be utilized, but I don’t see why the lodging providers could not incur some of these costs as well. Budgeting for beach clean-up efforts in the area immediately around the lodging seems like a fairly easy and cost-effective way to ensure the tourism product you are providing is quality.
ReplyDeleteI had two major takeaways from this article that both helped me to reach a deeper level of comprehension when it comes to the current material we have been discussing in class. My first takeaway was in regards to how exactly a choice experiment is modeled and carried out . Prior to reading this article I did not quite understand how the author of the survey does not lead the respondent such that they get the results expected from the research. I believe that this research method was conducted in a very fair and efficient manor being that there was always an option of not choosing a destination, and there were several different bundles to choose from. I also thought that the authors adequately conveyed places where they believed their model did not fully represent the exact demographics of vacationers. I did however have a hard time following a few of the more technical parts of the research, such as the differing classes.
ReplyDeleteMy second takeaway dealt with the results of the research itself. Intuitively it makes sense that the marginal utility for cleaning up litter decreases after the beach reaches a certain level of dirtiness, however having the hard numbers to support this is vital when it comes to implementing policy. The study mentions that cleaning up litter from beaches that are not as dirty would have the greatest immediate impact on the economy, and I think that this information should not be taken lightly. As mentioned cleaning up litter in the Barbados could provide the boost they need to fully recover from the 2008financial crisis. I am interested to know how the tourist economy, and coastal ecosystems are doing today in Barbados.
I found the discussion about how much litter people are willing to tolerate on a beach very interesting. The authors note that when a beach is already fairly dirty, any extra pieces of debris don’t bring down the value of the beach a great deal, but that when a beach is relatively clean every additional piece of trash results in a steep drop in value. They also note that the value (benefit) of visiting a beach with a lot of trash is so small that a potential visitor often simply chooses an alternative destination to visit. Intuitively speaking, all three levels of trash behavior made sense. Will I pay to have the beach cleaned? If it has a ton of trash, no thanks - lost cause; a fair amount of trash and I’ll still visit but will only pay a little for you to bring the litter count down; for a beach I expect to have no trash, I’ll pay a ton to bring down litter, as I visit with the expectation that it will be clean. The WTP calculation for beach-litter is kind of like an Indifference Curve for litter and cash expense; if we take cash expense on the y-axis and litter on the x-axis, we expect much steeper indifference curves for cleaner beeches than for dirty ones.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in reading this article after our discussion on non-market valuation on Tuesday because it highlights a real-life example of how attempts to determine the value of the environment are carried out in economic practice. The results are not surprising to me, but it's encouraging to see econometric analyses to back them up. I wonder how the results might have been different if the study had been conducted during the recession. The paper mentioned that a person's willingness to pay for these attributes probably decreases as their disposable income decreases, but it would be interesting to see just how elastic it is. Is the environment an afterthought, second to "more important" things like food, shelter, comfort? Probably. Or are people definitely less willing to pay for a cleaner environment when times are tough? It could be interesting to see just how susceptible to economic fluctuations environmental preservation efforts are.
ReplyDeleteI think the authors finding that preferences for litter on beaches being nonlinear is emblematic of the broader issues of environmental policy. The results suggest that tourists value a decrease in litter more on clean beaches as opposed to beaches with high prevalence of litter. I found this to be an example of how it can be very difficult to enact environmental remedies once people's expectations are lowered. Take for instance the common argument surrounding climate policy positing that the United States should not take drastic steps to reduce carbon emissions because developing countries are polluting to a greater extent. This argument essentially says why should we reduce carbon emissions where levels are already so high or why should we engage in major litter cleanup on beaches already riddled with litter. Lowered expectations often means lower motivation posing significant challenges to environmental cleanup efforts.
ReplyDeleteThis paper also changed my view on the tourism industry and its relationship with environmental policy. Prior to this paper I had always thought of tourism, especially in coastal areas, as having a strictly negative effect on the environment. On a particular family vacation, I remember snorkeling guides complaining about how hotel development was adding sediment to the nearby waters, clouding the views of the reefs, painting a picture that hotel and resort development where burdens on environmental resources. However, this is only partly true. The authors of this paper illuminated the concept that tourism can be an economic incentive for conservation efforts. The lucrative nature of tourism in Barbados and its importance to the island nation's economy aligns the interests of the developers and conservationist in a way that I had not thought about before reading this article.
The paper made me wonder, if beach width were given a definition or a picture if guests would rank it higher on the list of priority attributes of their stay. As Professor Casey stated in class, people were more willing to pay for the protection of the coral cover when shown the differences. If guests were shown the difference in beach widths, I believe it would become a greater factor when making a decision. I found the discussion of litter interesting. The notion that once a beach is clean, an additional unit of littler is relatively higher than when a beach is dirty and providing an additional unit of litter makes sense to me, but might be cause for concern. If a guest is willing to tolerate some trash, then what’s a couple of extra units of litter? It may enforce the behavior that if there is some litter already on the beach, why is it my responsibility to clean up my trash?
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with the hypothesis and conclusions of this paper, and I can’t avoid taking this issue to my home town. Being from a beach city in South America (Mar del Plata, Argentina), I experienced with my own eyes the negative externalities that littering causes. While not to the same extent as Barbados, tourism contributes a significant amount to the economy of the city. This is particularly true in the summer, when more than 3 million people (mostly argentines) visit the city. While I do not have empirical data to support the following, and I am basing it off conversations I had with argentines outside Mar de Plata, I believe argentines also have a high MWP for clean beaches. In the last ten years there has been a trend in which argentines that previously visited Mar del Plata now go to Punta del Este, Uruguay to spend their time off. When asked why they make that change they give two answers: 1. Inflation makes Mar del Plata too expensive (fair, but Punta del Este is still more expensive) 2. Mar del Plata’s beaches are full of litter. The latter point is the one that strikes me the most, especially when considering that the government of MDP does very little to keep the beaches clean. And it is not only less tourists visiting the city that decreases the economic value, it is also the locals seeing how the city gets nasty. As much as it hurts to say this, one of the big issues is that moral suasion in Argentina is way lower than in the U.S. or the U.K., so tourists litter way more than the tourists going to Barbados. Only “The Tragedy of Commons” can explain the hypocrisy of tourists that litter so much one summer, and the next summer say they are not returning to MDP because it is too dirty. That being said, if the government of MDP did a giant effort to keep the beaches clean (both by cleaning and preventing to litter), tourism could increase significantly in the city. This is a topic that I will look into further, and could probably be the topic of my final paper.
ReplyDeleteI found this paper to be very well-thought out with a thorough analysis. Admittedly, I had some trouble following parts of the regression results/ discussion section, as I’m not yet very familiar with logit models. Section 3.3 in particular had me a little lost. Despite this, I was able to discern the main points and the main results and follow most of the process, which is a reflection on the quality of the paper itself. I had several questions about the findings in the middle of the paper, but the conclusions section continuously addressed them.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing preference classes, the authors state: “This group derives nearly equal utility from changes in litter and proximity.” The conclusions addressed this in a positive light, stating that people may be willing to stay a short walk away (2-3 minutes) in exchange for a cleaner beach. However, my first thoughts were that this could be a negative thing. If people are able to stay right on the beach, as there are so many resorts already, why should they care about a little bit of litter? What are other incentives for them to pay to clean beaches? Also, what about the non-monetary trade off while staying further away, such as a 6-8 minute walk? How does that change preferences? Could people staying further away have less money to pay for beachfront resorts and therefore have a lower WTP? If I read without misunderstanding completely, I don’t feel like the controls used were discussed enough. I would have liked a more in-depth look at the stochastic term and possible errors, as well as a control/ more discussion about things such as domestic tourism and socio-economic status of beach-goers, not just those who stay in hotels.
· For me, the most interesting conclusion of this paper was a realization about willingness to pay for incremental beach litter vs. pristine (non-littered) beaches. The authors found that the first marginal piece of litter on a beach is far more negatively impactful than each additional piece of liter after that. In their own words: "The most pronounced differences in willingness to pay to avoid litter are at the lower end of the litter spectrum, indicating that once a beach is dirty, the loss in value per unit of additional litter is smaller than when litter is added to a relatively clean beach."
ReplyDeleteThis conclusion struck me in relation to our discussion on Tuesday. The authors findings essentially indicate that a beach is at its most valuable when it is litter free and that consumers willingness to pay is highest for a clean, litter free beach. This sets up a fascinating policy problem that pits short term economic gains against long-term economic viability (much like Solow's theory on conservation) since the cost of litter on a beach is clearly non-linear. From a policy perspective, that makes the first piece of litter the most dangerous and thus the most important to prevent. This makes the clean up efforts a less than ideal solution, the onus on keeping beaches pristine should be in prevention rather than response to littering. Maybe Barbados should invest in trash cans or have a no disposable waste policy.
I liked the mission, theory, and model of this paper, but I am still skeptical about contingent valuation as a totally reliable sampling method. There may be other situations in which I feel it would work better, but asking people to differentiate between a beach that is 8-10 meters and one that's 11-13 seems to me to be not that valuable. Especially considering the people they are asking are on vacation, I feel like responses on willingness to pay may not be totally accurate. One thing I was more curious about the paper was this part at the end:
ReplyDelete"Coastal managers should give careful consideration to the possibility of rebuilding further back from the water when coastal structures are inevitably replaced. Increasing the setback requirement for future properties will allow for improved protection of valuable coastal and marine assets from potential wave and storm damage or sea level rise, and our results suggest that such actions are unlikely to adversely affect visitation provided that other amenities such as cleanliness and views are maintained"
I didn't totally understand their point here. Are they saying that not building properties further inland will help protect properties at the coast? How is this true? Is the point that people should be more lenient on travel time to the beach because the coasts can be better protected if more buildings are further in?
I really appreciate how this paper performed an evaluation on natural goods. As we have discussed in class, particularly in Chapter 4, it is very difficult to quantify willingness to pay. At first when I skimmed over the study, I thought that they were going to be asking people how much they would be willing to pay for a hotel by the beach. Instead, the study broke down the different attributes very well, assessing the travelers who had just visited Barbados.
ReplyDeleteThe point that really stuck with me was the threshold of trash on beaches. It makes sense to me that that would be the case- that once a beach is considered dirty, people don't really care how much dirtier it gets. I'm wondering what other sorts of resources like clean beaches could be measured in a similar way?