Valuation of improvements in coastal environments

Based on the study Östberg, K., Håkansson, C., Hasselström, L. & Bostedt, G. (2013). Benefit Transfer for Environmental Improvements in Coastal Areas: General vs. Specific Models. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61, pp

Background The ocean and coastal environments is of huge importance for many species. The diversity contributes to many values, including recreation, food and tourism. There are today many threats against the ocean and coastal environments. Pollution Euthropication Lack of protection for sensitive species and areas To safeguard benefits from ocean and coastal ecosystems is an important policy task.

Environmental objectives The EU water framework directive has the objective the all ground and surface water should reach good ecological status by Member countries should formulate action plans that takes benefits and costs into account. Sweden's environmental objectives concerning euthropication in The levels of euthropying substances in soil and water should have no negative effect on human health, the basis for biodiversity and the opportunities for multiple use of soil and water. Sub-goal concerning noise and other disturbances. Noise and other disturbances from boat traffic should be negligible in certain sensitive designated archipelago and coastal areas by Certain specially sensitive areas should be established.

Valuing improvements in coastal environments Willingness-to-pay as welfare measure of environmental changes Valuation study based on ecological knowledge and connected to recent policy issues Can the results be used for benefit transfer? Time saving Low cost Benefit transfer and socio-economic data Better/more reliable results?

Study areas Two studies were conducted in the autumn of 2009 in the coastal areas: Between Södertälje and Landsort (the southernmost point of the Stockholm archipelago) on the east coast Between Orust and Tjörn on the west coast Both are important fishing and recreational areas Meets similar environmental problems and possible solutions for them Availability of large amounts of ecological information

Environmental problems in these areas Algae bloom of blue-green algae (east coast only)

Environmental problems Murky water/increased water turbidity

Environmental problems Noise and littering

The surveys Webbased choice experiment survey Four samples, two on each coast Locals, living in the area Non-locals, living outside, but close to the area Socio-economic questions, connection to the area, knowledge of current conditions As similar attributes as possible were chosen, but: Algae bloom is only a problem on the east coast Attributes: Secchi depth and bladderwrack stands (blåstångsbestånd) as indicator of water quality Algae bloom (on the east coast) Noise and littering Cost

Attribute levels Secchi depth and bladderwrack stands Alae bloomNoise and littering Present situation Very little, little or sparingly High risk of large scale algae bloom every summer No large scale efforts by authorities to reduce noise and littering in these waters. Alternative attribute levels Secchi depth becomes one class better Or Secchi depth becomes two classes better High risk of large scale algae bloom every third summer Or High risk of large scale algae bloom every 10th summer Decreased noise and littering through the establishment of special consideration zones

Measures to improve the coastal environment To improve the situation with murky water and algae bloom: Reduce the emissions of nutrients from sewage treatment plants using new technology. To reduce noise and littering in the coastal environment Establish special consideration zones with restrictions for boating, posting of waste disposal stations etc. Funding Monthly fee payed to a state fund between the years by the citizens in the region

Example of a choice set question Alternative AAlternative BAlternative C Secchi depth and bladderwrack stands As todayOne class betterAs today Algae bloomAs today Every 3:rd summer Noise and litteringAs todayLess noise and litteringAs today Cost for household0 kr/month100 kr/month20 kr/month  I would choose alternative A  I would choose alternative B  I would choose alternative C

Method Two models to compare the effect of socio-economic variables A model with general variables: gender, age, income, born in Sweden, education A model with more specific information Benefit transfer Can an estimated WTP value from the east coast be used as an estimate of the WTP on the west coast, and vice versa? How large are the transfer errors?

WTP from the specific models (SEK) West coastEast coast LocalsNon-localsLocalsNon-locals Secchi depth 1 class better Secchi depth 2 classes better Algae bloom every 3:rd summer Algae bloom every 10:th summer Less noise and littering

WTP from the general models (SEK) West coastEast coast LocalsNon-localsLocalsNon-locals Secchi depth 1 class better Secchi depth 2 classes better Algae bloom every 3:rd summer Algae bloom every 10:th summer Less noise and littering

Benefit transfer between the coasts The transfer error, the error that results from using values from one studied area as benefit estimate at another area (the policy site) For an improvement of the Secchi depth/water quality: between 2% and 47% For less noise and littering: between 43% and 88% Harder to make benefit transfer for noise and littering than water quality

Conclusions WTP is the largest for improvement in Secchi depth/water quality, but differ between groups: 1 class improvement: kr 2 classes improvement: kr WTP for less algae bloom (east coast only): Every 3:rd summer: kr Every 10:th summer: kr WTP for less noise and littering: West coast: kr East coast: kr More information (including socio-economic variables) does not reduce transfer errors