Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 223–247 | Cite as

Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-Market Values

  • V. Kerry Smith
  • Xiaolong Zhang
  • Raymond B. Palmquist
Article

Abstract

This paper reports the first attempt to measure the importance of controlling marine debris as an aesthetic characteristic of beaches and coastal area. The results are based on a contingent valuation survey designed to estimate the economic value people would place on controlling marine debris on recreational beaches in New Jersey and North Carolina. A Weibull survival model was estimated treating for and against votes as defining censoring points for an unknown willingness to pay distribution. The findings suggest: (1) people do distinguish situations with differing amounts of debris when they are described using color photographs; (2) the pilot survey implies measures of people's willingness to pay (WTP) for debris control are consistent with a scope test in that larger WTP is associated with programs intended to address situations for more serious background levels of debris; and (3) local beach conditions seem to influence how people interpreted the plans describing beach conditions without the proposed control programs.

marine debris contingent valuation scope test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. (1958), 'Utilities, Attitudes and Choices: A Review Note', Econometrica 26 (January), 1–23.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K., R. Solow, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman (1994), 'Comment on NOAA Proposed Rule on Natural Resource Damage Assessments', ANPNM, Comment No. 69, January 7.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman (1993), 'Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation', Federal Register, January 15 58(10), 4601–4614.Google Scholar
  4. Beggs, S., S. Cardell, and J. A. Hausman (1981), 'Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars', Journal of Econometrics 16 (September), 1–19.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, T. A. (1988), 'A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-Market Goods Using Referendum Data'. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15 (September), 355–379.Google Scholar
  6. Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud, and V. K. Smith with M. Conaway and K. Martin (forthcoming), 'Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation', Review of Economics and Statistics (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud, and V. K. Smith (1994), Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB Contamination in the Southern California Bight. Report to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc., La Jolla, Ca., September.Google Scholar
  8. Carson, R. T., R. C. Mitchell, W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, S. Presser, and P. A. Ruud (1992), A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc., La Jolla, Ca., November 10.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, C. A., W. P. Gregg, D. V. Richards, and D. A. Manski (1995), Annual Report of National Park Marine Debris Monitoring Program, Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, July.Google Scholar
  10. Diamond, Peter A. and Jerry A. Hausman (1994), 'Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number', Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (Fall), 45–64.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, A. M. III (1993), The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  12. Hanemann, W. M. (1984), 'Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments With Discrete Responses', American Journal of Agriculture Economics 66 (August), 332–341.Google Scholar
  13. Hanemann, W. M. (1994), 'Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation', Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (Fall), 19–44.Google Scholar
  14. Heckman, J. (1979), 'Sample Bias as a Specification Error', Econometrica 47 (January), 153–162.Google Scholar
  15. Kreps, D. M. (1990), A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. McConnell, K. E. (1990), 'Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (January), 19–34.Google Scholar
  17. McFadden, D. (1974), 'Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior', in P. Zarembka, ed., Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–142.Google Scholar
  18. Poirier, D. (1980), 'Partial Observability in Bivariate Probit Models', Journal of Econometrics 12, 209–217.Google Scholar
  19. Portney, P. R. (1994), 'The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care', Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (Fall), 3–18.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, V. K. (1993), 'NonMarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal', Land Economics 69 (February), 1–26.Google Scholar
  21. Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran (1980), Statistical Methods, 7th edition. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Zhang, X. (1995) Integrating Resource Types, Payment Methods, and Access Conditions to Model Use and Nonuse Values: Valuing Marine Debris Control. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, unpublished Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  23. Zhang, X., V. K. Smith, and R. B. Palmquist (1992a), Marine Debris Focus Group I: Summary Report I. Resource and Environmental Economics Program, North Carolina State University.Unpublished paper, January 27.Google Scholar
  24. Zhang, X., V. K. Smith, and R. B. Palmquist (1992b), Marine Debris Focus Group II: Summary Report. Resource and Environmental Economics Program, North Carolina State University.Unpublished paper, January 27.Google Scholar
  25. Zhang, X., V. K. Smith, and R. B. Palmquist (1993), Marine Debris Focus Group III: Summary Report.Resource and Environmental Economics Program, North Carolina State University. Unpublished paper, June 17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Kerry Smith
    • 1
  • Xiaolong Zhang
    • 2
  • Raymond B. Palmquist
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.AT&TBasking RidgeUSA
  3. 3.Dept of EconomicsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations