Abstract
The practical importance of landscape valuation relates to the impact of landscape change on people’s well-being. Change can be assessed, though with problems noted, by direct value questionnaires. Change may also be assessed by relative judgements of aesthetic value, perhaps posed in the context of willingness to undertake gambles concerning various states of landscape. Both home owners and visitors to sites have choices of strategy in response to adverse landscape change. They may just suffer the change; they may relocate; in the case of visits, they may simply stay at home. The utility change differs between strategies. Substitution may be treated via reinterpretation of standard travel cost analysis. Generally beneficial aesthetic change may not suit everyone, particularly those familiar with a landscape’s previous state.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Benson, J. F., & Willis, K. G. (1992). Valuing informal recreation on the Forestry Commission estate. Forestry Commission Bulletin 104.
Cavailhès, J., Brossard, T., Foltête, J.-C., Hilal, M., Joly, D., Tourneux, F.-P., Tritz, C., & Wavresky, P. (2009). GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44, 571–590.
Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.
Cullinan, J., Hynes, S., & O’Donoghue, C. (2011). Using spatial microsimulation to account for demographic and spatial factors in environmental benefit transfer. Ecological Economics, 70, 813–824.
Flanders, M., & Swann, D. (1963). At the drop of another hat. London: Parlophone Records.
Freeman, A. M., III. (1979). Approaches to measuring public goods demands. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 915–920.
Hasund, K. P. (1998). Valuable landscapes and reliable estimates. In S. Dabbert, A. Dubgaard, L. Slangen & M. Whitby (Eds.), The economics of landscape and wildlife conservation. (pp. 65–83). Wallingford: CAB International.
Lizin, S., Brouwer, R., Liekens, I., & Broeckx, S. (2016). Accounting for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in a labelled choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management, 181, 289–297.
MacMillan, D. C., Duff, E. I., & Elston, D. A. (2001). Modelling the non-market environmental costs and benefits of biodiversity projects using contingent valuation data. Environmental and Resource Economics, 18, 391–410.
Paul, M. (1971). Can aircraft noise nuisance be measured in money? Oxford Economic Papers, 23, 297–322.
Price, C. (1979). Public preference and the management of recreational congestion. Regional Studies, 13, 125–139.
Price, C. (2004). Economic treatment of recreational congestion. Scandinavian Forest Economics, 40, 331–342.
Price, C., Christensen, J. B., & Humphreys, S. K. (1986). Elasticities of demand for recreation site and for recreation experience. Environment and Planning A, 18, 1259–1263.
Santos, J. M. (1998). The economic value of landscape change: Theory and policies for land use and conservation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
UK Treasury. (1972). Forestry in Great Britain: An interdepartmental cost/benefit study. London: HMSO.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Price, C. (2017). The Utility Effects of Landscape Change. In: Landscape Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54873-9_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54873-9_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54872-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54873-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)