The Economic Value of Water and Ecosystem Preservation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Consumer surplus is a monetary measure calculated as the difference in what a consumer is willing to pay for a given good and the price they actually have to pay (Pearce, 1994). Economic theory typically assumes a negative demand relationship between price and quantity, which simply means that at lower prices people are willing to buy more units of a given product. This is represented graphically by a downward sloping demand curve in Figure 4-1. However, individuals normally face a single unit (market) price which is unaffected for different levels of consumption. This creates a condition where the price actually paid is less than the price the consumer is willing to pay for quantities less than Q* as illustrated in Figure 4-1. The total of these differences are the consumer’s surplus as it is the additional benefit received from a given level of consumption but not actually paid for (the shaded area in Figure 4-1). Figure 4-1. Typical Demand Curve with Negative Relationship between Price and Quantity Price Q* Consumer Surplus For the Travel Cost Method, the market price for ecotourism is equated to the actual travel costs borne by the consumer. A demand curve is calculated from survey data which estimates a relationship between price and quantity, where quantity is the number of trips taken. Finally, the consumer surplus is calculated as the area below the demand curve and above the market price. This consumer surplus is then attributed to the (non-market) ecosystem services supporting the tourism experience. That is, on average the consumer surplus is the value of the economic benefit that ecotourists receive from the ecosystem services supporting ecotourism. The measure answers the question over what the current value of inflows are in support of ecotourism. The study also uses a production function approach to estimate the value of freshwater inflows on the ecotourism sector. A production function approach considers freshwater inflows as an input to the production of ecotourism. This 34 Price Demand Quantity demanded
approach allows examination of question 2, which is concerned with the economic impacts on the ecotourism sector resulting from changes in the flow regime. 4.3.1. Travel Cost Method - Survey and Data Description Data was gathered from a survey that was administered to visitors to gather information about their trip including number of visits per year and average cost of a visit. The survey also gathered information on recreational activities undertaken, previous visits, typical length of stay, and location of home and primary recreational area. There were a total of 417 useable surveys that contained the necessary data. A total of 65 percent of respondents reported themselves as permanently residing in Texas. The most common activity reported among respondents was going to the beach at 79%. This was followed closely by fishing (68%), nature observation (65%), and bird watching (62%). The average number of day trips during the previous 12 months was 23, while the median was three. The average duration of a day trip was 4.5 hours. Almost 100% of respondents reported making a previous trip to Coastal Bend bay and estuaries for outdoor recreation and leisure. Many respondents were “Winter Texans” and incurred high travel costs in traveling to Texas for the winter. The survey sought to gather travel costs incurred only for the nature trip and not for the entire cost of relocating for the winter. The average reported travel cost was $508 and the median cost was only $100. Table 4-1. Descriptive Characteristics of key variables collected from surveys (for the aggregated data set) Variable Value Texas resident 65% Previous trip 99.76% Average number of annual trips 27.3 Average number of trips were day trips 23.4 Average trip duration in hours 4.5 Average trip time in hours 0.88 Average Travel Cost ($) 508 Median 100 Minimum 1 Maximum 5,000 Activities participated in: Fishing 68% Hunting 13% Beach 79% 35
Page 1 and 2: Final Report to the Texas Coastal M
Page 3 and 4: 5.2.2. Sources / Data .............
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary The San Antonio B
Page 7 and 8: ecotourism included in the model. T
Page 9 and 10: 1. Overview of San Antonio Bay Regi
Page 11 and 12: and shellfish species and estuarine
Page 13 and 14: According to the Rockport-Fulton Ch
Page 15 and 16: effect is limited by assimilative c
Page 17 and 18: freshwater inflow acts as a mechani
Page 19 and 20: sulfide. Heavy metals bounds to sed
Page 21 and 22: inflow levels and populations of se
Page 23 and 24: and could potentially make the cran
Page 25 and 26: 3. Characterization of Ecotourism i
Page 27 and 28: Contributes actively to the conserv
Page 29 and 30: Figure 3-1. Public Protected Areas
Page 31 and 32: 1987 and then purchased in 1991. Pr
Page 33 and 34: 3.3.2. The Economics of Multiple Na
Page 35 and 36: Table 3-2. Average Willingness to P
Page 37 and 38: Table 3-3. Personal Income and Prod
Page 39 and 40: impact. It is necessary to conduct
Page 41: 4.2. Key Site Details for the Analy
Page 45 and 46: This average number of trips from t
Page 47 and 48: occasional flood and drought events
Page 49 and 50: The results of the regression yield
Page 51 and 52: gallons, which results in a value o
Page 53 and 54: Aransas distinguishes itself from C
Page 55 and 56: thresholds vary according the size
Page 57 and 58: The total number of full-time and p
Page 59 and 60: The County also shows a lower educa
Page 61 and 62: Refugio shows a rapid decrease in t
Page 63 and 64: IM t+ n ic = E t ic ⎡⎛ E × ⎢
Page 65 and 66: included an economic analysis of th
Page 67 and 68: Table 5-5. Employment Shift-Share A
Page 69 and 70: Fishing and related activities. The
Page 71 and 72: Figure 5-15. Employment change by s
Page 73 and 74: 5.3.2. Input-Output Analysis The in
Page 75 and 76: Calhoun Calhoun County’s experien
Page 77 and 78: an advantage, particularly in oyste
Page 79 and 80: Impacts on the Freshwater Inflows t
Page 81 and 82: However, due to the lack of consist
Page 83 and 84: This implicitly assumes that flows
Page 85 and 86: for fresh product. This fishery wil
Page 87 and 88: Elliot, D. (2007). Competitive Adva
Page 89 and 90: Pearce, D. W. (1994). The MIT Dicti
Page 91 and 92: The Nature Conservancy. (2002). "Na

The Economic Value of Water and Ecosystem Preservation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?