Marine Policy 35 (2011) 764–771

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59

doi:10.1

$This

carried

and Inn

under t

2007–2n Corr

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Improving the recreational value of Ireland’s coastal resources: A contingentbehavioural application$

Luke Barry, Tom M. van Rensburg n, Stephen Hynes

Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 9 February 2011

Keywords:

Contingent behaviour model

Willingness to pay

Coastal recreation

Public access

7X/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

016/j.marpol.2011.01.009

work was funded through the Beaufort Mari

out under the Sea Change Strategy and the Str

ovation (2006–2013), with the support of t

he Marine Research Sub-Programme of the

013.

esponding author. Tel.: +353 91 493858; fax

ail address: thomas.vanrensburg@nuigalway.i

a b s t r a c t

This paper measures willingness to pay (WTP) for public access to additional beach area and trail

improvements to a coastal recreational site in the west of Ireland. The Contingent Behaviour model is

used to measure the increased number of trips associated with improved public access using a

connecting trail between two beach areas along a stretch of Irish coastline. Results show that improving

access through the use of the connecting trail increases consumer surplus by h111.15 per person per

annum. It is argued that in designing new regulation such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for the

management of Ireland’s coastline, an understanding of the values the Irish public place on coastal

recreational access will be important to manage the resource in a sustainable manner.

& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This paper reports on a study that investigates willingness topay (WTP) for an improvement to a coastal recreational site, inthe form of a cliff top walking trail that connects two beach areasin the west of Ireland. In recent years increasing demands arebeing made of coastal resources for a variety of recreationalactivities such as for walking, mountaineering, mountain biking,recreational angling and water sports [1–4]. Increased affluence,urbanisation and changing values have all combined to increasethe demand for land-based recreational amenities, which arelocated in many coastal areas of Europe and the United States.

Wilson et al. [5] point out how human beings, as welfare-maximising agents, attach positive economic values to thenon-market goods and services, which the coast provides. It istherefore increasingly recognised that coastal recreational activ-ities such as walking have the potential to deliver significanteconomic benefits to rural areas through tourism and therebysupport rural diversification, innovation and regional develop-ment. It is estimated that 510,000 individuals came to Ireland in2007 from overseas to take part in some form of walking activityand this was estimated to be worth h340 million to the Irisheconomy [6]. An earlier survey in Ireland reported that 13% of the

All rights reserved.

ne Research Award, which is

ategy for Science Technology

he Marine Institute, funded

National Development Plan

: +353 91 524130.

e (T.M. van Rensburg).

adult population (403,000) regularly uses trails and other walkingpaths [7]. Furthermore, more recent figures from Failte Ireland,the Irish tourism board, estimated that in 2008, 97,000 overseasvisitors to Ireland and 1,138,000 domestic holiday makersengaged in water based recreational activities [6].

In view of the economic benefits associated with coastalleisure and tourism, policy makers both in Europe and abroadhave introduced a number of initiatives to enhance coastalresources. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill in the U.K. servesas one such example [8,9]. It aims to provide public access to thelength and breadth of the British coastline, which is reasonablypracticable. Whilst policy makers recognise the potential benefitsassociated with improved coastal access and coastal amenities,rational public decision-making on financing improvements tocoastal recreational amenities requires that these economicbenefits should be clearly identified and valued.

However, there are surprisingly few empirical studies thatquantify the economic benefits associated with coastal recrea-tional trails or the welfare impact of increasing the length ofbeach area available to recreationists. Most previous empiricalstudies on valuing public access for recreation focus on agricul-tural land, forest land and protected areas [4,10–16] or they focusinstead on beach use and coastal water quality improvements[1,2,17–30]. In another paper, McGonagle and Swallow, [3]singled out coastal walking trails as an important attribute thatcontributed positively and significantly to the welfare of recrea-tionalists. However the authors did not estimate the WTP forwalking trails per se, instead, the paper examined the differencesbetween scenic quality and ecological quality rather than therecreational values for walking. This paper seeks to extend thework of McGonagle and Swallow [3] using a contingent behaviour

L. Barry et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 764–771 765

model. The paper aims to quantify willingness to pay for thedevelopment of a coastal trail that connects two beach areasusing the case of the Galway bay coastline in the west of Ireland.

This paper proceeds as follows: First some background isprovided on the relevant literature. Then the empirical approachused to estimate willingness to pay is described and the resultsdiscussed. Finally, this paper concludes with a discussion of itsmajor findings and their implications for public access provisionto coastal resources for the purposes of outdoor recreation.

2. Coastal access and beach usage

Although there has been little research devoted to coastalrecreational values in Ireland, there are a number of qualitativeand quantitative studies from around the world that report onpublic attitudes and preferences to features of the coastlineparticularly beaches [1,19,21,24,27,31–34]. A number of studieshave argued that the utility derived from outdoor recreationalactivities is affected by the preferences visitors have for specificattributes of the resource in question [35–37]. The preferences ofusers or of society as a whole serve to help determine the desiredmanagement objectives. If economic values could be reliablyattached to features of a recreational resource, this would helppublic agencies in planning and managing the resource. Knowl-edge about people’s preferences for specific attributes would alsohelp planners know who is using the resource and why they visitand determine which attributes are likely to enhance visitationand what aspects will enhance visitor spend either as an entry feeor within the community locally. For example facilities providedfor walking as well as the environmental quality of coastal trailsare likely to affect demand for the use of Ireland’s coastalresources. Daugstad [38] reports that landscape quality is asignificant factor underpinning rural tourism in Norway and anumber of other studies note a relationship between environ-mental quality and its use for outdoor recreation [39–41].

Managers of coastal resources may have control over changesto the physical attributes of coastal sites but they may need toknow what attracts a particular type of visitor. Particular visitorsmay also have strong preferences for natural features of thecoastline. Other users may elicit a strong preference for facilitiesof a more developed urban nature. Planners and policy makersmay also be concerned with how changes to coastal sites willaffect visitor numbers or the utility of the individuals that visitthe sites. Important natural physical coastal attributes includewater quality, beach width, beach length, beach scenic quality,beach wildlife, biodiversity and ecological quality. Managers ofcoastal areas also exert influence over such factors as beachcongestion, beach access, coastal access such as roads and trailsand beach developments and facilities. Thus it is important tostudy these factors and discover what coastal improvements canhelp enhance the value of the resource and further developIreland’s tourist economy. In what follows, a brief overview of anumber of studies that focus on an evaluation of public prefer-ences for a variety of attributes associated with the coastline isprovided.

There is a rich literature on the use of stated and revealedpreference techniques to explore how beach attributes influenceWTP; for example how beach access, water quality and beachnourishment influences welfare estimates. A review of severalstudies that investigate beach access is now provided. Whiteheadet al. [29] investigate the demand for beach access using vehiclesfor recreation purposes in southern North Carolina. They combinerevealed preference and stated preference data in order toestimate the changes in recreation demand that might occurdue to facilitating beach access through the use of improved

beach car parking facilities (not via recreational trails). Whiteheadet al. [29] report that the increase in annual consumer surpluswith the improvement in beach access is estimated at $298 usingrevealed preference data. They show that the annual aggregaterecreation benefit to the entire population of improved access tosouthern North Carolina beaches is about $325 million.

A study by Chen et al. [25] evaluates the overall recreationalbenefits of a beach resource by using the zonal Travel CostMethod on the eastern coast of Xiamen Island in the People’sRepublic of China. This study uses on-site survey data to estimatean aggregate recreational benefit to the users of the beach ofUS$53.5 million, or a consumer surplus of US$16.90 per visitor.

A number of papers have also focused on the impact of beachwater quality on welfare estimates. Le Goffe [20] used thecontingent valuation method to evaluate WTP to ensure waterquality was of a sufficient standard to permit bathing, to preventthe spread of algal blooms and permit the collection of wildshellfish in Brest harbour, France. The study revealed thatrespondents were WTP between h25 and h34 per household peryear to improve water quality in the harbour. Kaoru [18] used theContingent Valuation Method to value water quality improve-ments for coastal ponds in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Thestudy found that the average WTP for water quality improve-ments was US$131.03 per person per year and that over half ofthis was attributed to existence value.

Lew and Larson [26] conducted a study into the valuation ofcoastal recreation to beaches in California using revealed pre-ference survey data based on a telephone survey. Recreationalimprovements were not the subject of analysis but instead theauthors explored which attributes affected beach choice. Relevantto our study, the authors also found that the coefficients on thebeach length variables in their models indicated that beach users’utility increases with the length of a beach at a decreasing rate.Similarly, McGonagle and Swallow [3] also found that longwalking trails contributed positively and significantly to utilityand that walking trails made the largest impact on utility (twicethat of restrooms and enforcement patrols).

Tunstall and Penning-Roswell’s [31] study of a variety ofEnglish beaches shows that respondents demonstrated a strongpreference for preserving ‘‘natural’’ beach features with swim-ming, walking and strolling as key activities engaged in at thebeach. In a rare Irish study, Macleod et al. [32] contrasted theperception and value of beaches in Co. Donegal to that of Sines,Portugal; two areas where visitors comprised largely of locals asopposed to visiting tourists from outside the area. They revealthat the majority of Irish people valued the sense of space,attractive physical character, cleanliness and naturalness, high-lighting preferences for a less intensive use of beaches comparedto Portugal.

In other research, Hanley et al. [2] and Morgan [1] developedrating systems for beaches and the coastline. Such systems takeaccount of differences in user preferences along with safetystandards and so can promote beaches based on their relativestrengths, as determined by the people who use them. While thishas certain advantages, there is presently no award system oreven a tiering of this system in Ireland to promote the main-tenance of an undeveloped beach, which according to the pre-vious literature seems to be very important to many beach users,especially the Irish. For example, in Co. Donegal, where manybeaches are in the main valued for their natural features by locals,efforts should perhaps be made to maintain these factors. Incontrast areas such as Salthill beach, Co. Galway, where the beachis almost an extension of the city and is highly developed, shouldperhaps place emphasis on maintaining high quality beach-sidefacilities of a more urban nature; thus, potentially promotingbusiness and employment in the area.

1 Landowners are paid an hourly rate of h14.50 up to a maximum of h2,900 a

year for their work and all materials will be supplied.

L. Barry et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 764–771766

Beaches act as a gateway to the Irish coastline and thusrepresent a key factor or attribute for improvement in order tocapture the potential economic benefits that marine relatedactivity can offer. Improved access is an important step towardsthese benefits. However the literature does caution that genericdevelopment could do more damage than good to the resource’svalue and suggests that to avoid this problem users must becarefully identified in order to capture this value. The Galway CityCouncil’s Recreation and Amenity Needs Study [42] carried out anumber of interviews with the residents of the city. Studyfindings show that it was Galway’s water-based and coastalresources, which offered the most significant untapped sourcesfor recreation. Water sports are acknowledged in the study andtheir active management is promoted in order to ensure theprotection of the areas ecological benefits. The Galway Kitesurfing Association identified that the trail examined in this paperwould provide access to a safer kite launching point compared tothe launch site at the beach presently and would thus greatly helppromote the sport in the area.

It should also be noted that tourism development is especiallysignificant in remote rural coastal regions where other economicopportunities are limited. Policy makers are aware that many partsof rural Ireland are witness to a gradual decline in economicfortunes. Small and medium size farms are dwindling in numbers,their incomes are stagnating and they are very dependent onagricultural support through the Common Agricultural Policy(CAP). Rural tourism offers an opportunity to address regionalimbalances in income and unemployment, to add value to regionalinfrastructure, improve public services, revitalise local crafts, cus-toms and identities, assist with re-population of rural areas andincrease human capital investment [43,44]. Many of the country’spopular coastal tourism destinations are located in the West andSouth West regions which the government is seeking to develop asan alternative to major metropolitan areas such as Dublin city [45].Tourism is thus viewed as a valuable source of income for ruralcommunities and it has now overtaken agriculture as the principalbusiness in many rural communities in Europe [46,47].

Rural based recreational activities have the potential to deliversubstantial economic benefits to rural areas through locally runtourism activities thereby fostering regional and local develop-ment [48,49]. Importantly, Failte Ireland [50] reported thatholidaymakers do not visit Ireland for the typical beach holiday,but rather seek out soft adventure activities such as surfing,kayaking etc. along the coast. Thus highlighting active recreationas one of the key portals for improving the economic value of thiscoastal resource and many others where the user may be moreanthropocentric.

Tourism related to coastal recreational activities such aswalking also has the potential to make a positive contributionto rural communities by increasing the personal income of localresidents, providing higher tax revenues for the state and throughthe creation of local employment opportunities [51–56]. Berg-strom et al. [57] reported that recreational spending contributedsubstantially to gross output, income, employment and valueadded in a study in the United States.

Experiences from other countries suggests that farmers maybenefit directly from tourism through the generation of additionalincome and the continuance of farming based on their own agri-tourism initiatives that are tied to outdoor recreation activities[58–60]. Farm households can also benefit economically wherethey respond to the demands of tourists by diversifying into high-value agricultural products [61]. Alternatively tourism can pro-vide indirect benefits in the form of rural services and improvedinfrastructure and the enhancement of quality of life [62,63].

One of the best means for improving the value of coastalresources, such as beaches, is through the provision of walking

trails. These not only provide a valuable source of recreation tothe public but also provide increased access to the coastline.However some of the best coastal walking areas in Ireland are notowned by the state but can only be accessed through private farmland. Although coastal communities and the tourism sector andits associated enterprises stands to benefit from the developmentof coastal walking trails, access to this land requires the consentof private landowners in the agricultural sector. A variety of issuessuch as potential interference with agronomic activities, insur-ance liability and potential invasion of privacy have been reportedby landowners as reasons why they may be unwilling to permitpublic access to their farmland for walking related activities[4,15,64,65]. Policy makers are aware of this issue and of theneed to engage landowners in schemes that facilitate access inorder to benefit both farmers themselves and the wider commu-nity. In 2004 the Minister for Community, Rural and GaeltachtAffairs initiated Comhairle Na Tuaithe (a countryside recreationalcouncil) in the Republic of Ireland [66,67]. The aim of this councilwas to investigate the issue of access to the countryside and todevelop a ‘‘walkways management scheme’’ whereby landownerswould be paid for the development and maintenance of approved,way-marked ways that pass through their land. Some h4 millionwas provided in 2008 and four existing trails have been selectedfor this pilot scheme1.

Given the potential exchequer costs of developing a coastaltrails network it is important to weigh up the costs and benefits ofmeasures aimed at promoting public access to the Irish coastlinefor walking related activities. More generally, local authorities areincreasingly expected to justify exchequer expenditure anddemonstrate that tax payers are getting their moneys worth.The opportunity costs to the agricultural sector from developing atrails network may be significant in terms of having to foregobenefits from alternative uses that might have yielded actualmarket benefits. The measurement of non-market benefits asso-ciated with public access along the Irish coast is required to givemeaningful estimates of the benefits of enhancing access to thecountryside. This paper therefore sets out to estimate the demandfor coastal access that opens additional area of beach for recrea-tionalists using a site in Co. Galway. In what follows a descriptionof the data and methodology being used is now given.

3. Data and method

The data analysed in this paper were generated from a surveyof visitors to a beach on the outskirts of Galway city in Ireland.Silverstrand beach is located approximately 7 km outside ofGalway city and is accessible by public road only. Silverstrandoffers visitors a highly distinctive coastal landscape combinedwith easy access to Galway city. Silverstrand was awarded a blueflag status in 2009 and is therefore required to comply withcertain standards in terms of lifeguard safety and patrol as well ashigh water quality.

The survey interviews for the study were conducted face-to-face at Silverstand beach. A total of 146 individuals were inter-viewed. Each interview lasted approximately 20 minutes andfollowed a standard format. Those engaging in water sports wereinterviewed after they undertook these activities. The question-naire was piloted over a 2 week period in June 2009. Prior to thepilot it was thought that because the study site was so close to anurban area that further development would be preferred to non-development. However results from the pilot showed that

Fig. 1. Silverstrand Beach and proposed trail connecting to additional beach area.

(footnote continued)

hypothetical or alternative market for the environmental good being examined.

Respondents are then asked to state their maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for

reaching or preserving the alternative state of the environmental resource or their

minimum willingness to accept (WTA) for the loss of that state. The CBM on the

other hand combines both a revealed preference question on number of trips

L. Barry et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 764–771 767

improved opportunities for recreational walking and access alongthe coastline between the two beaches of Salthill and Silverstrandwas highly valued and thus a walking trail to increase the utilityof the resource to the user became the primary focus for the mainsurvey which took place at Silverstrand during the months of Julyand August 2009. The beach site and the proposed trail are shownin Fig. 1.

In the survey, visitors were questioned about the distancetravelled and time taken, the activities undertaken, trip duration,amount of trips to the beach, the amount of money they spentrelated to their trip, and the travel time and distance and number oftrips to substitute sites. Finally, all respondents were asked a seriesof questions on household characteristics in order to determinewhich socio-economic variables affect the number of trips taken.

Respondents were also asked a contingent behaviour questionin relation to how the usage of the beach facility would change ifthe length of beach at their disposal was increased through theopening up of a cliff walk that would give them access to anadditional 1 km of beach (see Table 1). The contingent behaviourmodel2 elicits the current value for the resource using a revealed

2 The Contingent Behaviour Method (CBM) should not be confused with the

Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). The idea behind CVM is to create a

preference technique, in this case the travel cost method, butincludes a stated preference question to identify how this originalbehaviour might change contingent on a potential change to theresource in question. In the contingent behaviour model, thedependent variable is an integer for a before and after scenarioindicating the number of trips taken to the beach site in a giventime period. Since the trips variable can only take on a limitednumber of values, that can only be integers, application of thestandard distributional assumptions (e.g., normality) is inap-propriate. The dependent variable in the contingent behaviourmodel cannot take on a continuous range of values [68].

Therefore, following the work of Creel and Loomis [69], thecurrent model was estimated under the assumption that the

taken to a site (rather than WTP) and a stated preference question on the likely

change in number of trips taken should a hypothetical change occur at the site.

The trips data is then used to model the WTP for changes at the site. The CVM

usually uses binary choice models in estimation whereas the CBM usually employs

count data models.

Table 1Scenario examined in contingent behaviour study.

Suppose that NEXT YEAR a new WALKING PATH was built connecting to this

beach resource.

The path would consist of:

� An approx 2 km round trip walk along the cliffs to the end of the spit at

Rusheen Bay

� Walkers would be granted formal right of way along the walk (currently

people walk along the cliff but are not supposed to as it is privately owned

farm land),

� A marked path with a fence to separate the walk from the farm land and

cliff edge

� Informational plaques detailing the surrounding countryside.

All facilities would be built with material that blends in with the coastal

amenity.

How would these new facilities affect your use of THIS BEACH?

Table 2Estimated negative binomial contingent behaviour models.

Explanatory variables Pooled Panel

Negative binomial

model

Negative binomial

model

Travel cost �0.039*** (�0.005) �0.041*** (�0.006)

Water sport participation 0.688*** (0.221) 0.723*** (0.236)

Age 0.386*** (0.068) 0.293*** (0.077)

Income 0.019*** (0.004) 0.013*** (0.003)

Member of recreation or

environmental organisation

0.266* (0.155) 0.348** (0.165)

Married 0.862*** (0.200) 0.626*** (0.218)

Once off visit to beach �2.358*** (�0.405) �0.863** (�0.377)

Employed �0.221 (�0.165) �0.143 (�0.184)

Contingent behaviour 0.462*** (0.147) 0.295*** (0.035)

Constant 0.578 (0.407) 1.575*** (0.463)

Ln(Alpha) 0.339*** (0.131)

Ln(r) 1.264*** (0.176)

Ln(s) 0.686*** (0.154)

Number of respondents 285 285

Likelihood ratio/Wald w2 statistic 158 241

Log likelihood �1098 �992

Standard errors are in parentheses.

nnn Indicates significance at the 1% level.nn Indicates significance at the 5% level.n Indicates significance at the 10% level.

L. Barry et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 764–771768

observed number of trips can be described by a count data model.Count data models are typically estimated based on either thePoisson or negative binomial distributions. A negative binomialspecification is used to account for over-dispersion of the data,that is, where the conditional variance is greater than theconditional mean. This is a generalisation of the Poisson model[70]. To take account of the panel nature of the data, a randomeffects specification was also utilised. Given that the data arederived from an on-site survey, it should also be noted that we donot model the decision to take a trip by those who currently donot visit the site. Therefore, the welfare estimates presented inthis paper relate only to those who currently visit the Silverstrandsite in the survey.3 Following the work of Hellerstein andMendelsohn [71] and as applied by Hanley et al. [2] the resultingtravel cost coefficient estimate from the negative binomial panelmodel is used to value the increase in trips in monetary terms.4

4. Results

Given the contingent behaviour model described previously,there are two aspects of the estimated model that are of particularimportance; firstly, whether the travel cost parameter is signifi-cant (if not, then no welfare estimates can be made), andsecondly, whether the coefficient for the dummy variable forthe change in the coastal walking resource5 is significant (if not,no prediction of the change in visitor numbers can be made). Asnoted above, the econometric approach taken is to use a paneldata estimator because it takes into account the correlation in theerrors between each person’s two choices—actual and intendedbehaviour. Also, a random effects specification is used. Finally,since the dependent variable is a ‘count’ variable, one must testwhether a poisson or negative binomial panel estimator is

3 In the contingent behaviour modelling framework, each person i in the data

set yields two responses. The first is the number of trips (Vij) they make to beach j

per year, The second observation is how many extra trips (if any) the person says

they would make if a specified improvement in recreational facilities at the beach

occurs. To estimate the recreational benefits from the suggested walking facility

improvements for Silverstrand and to predict the change in the number of trips,

one must firstly predict trips under current and under hypothetical conditions as a

function of travel costs to the beach (TCij), income (Yi), and other socio-economic

characteristics such as the gender, age and education level of the respondent.4 It is important to state that the relevant comparison in welfare terms is

between the number of predicted trips at the current level of coastal walking

provision at the beach site and the predicted number of trips at the improved

level. Also, one cannot disaggregate benefit estimates into additional utility from

those who take no extra trips to the beach and additional utility from those who

visit most frequently.5 This variable is referred to as Contingent Behaviour in Table 2.

appropriate. All models were estimated using the softwarepackage Stata.

Both Poisson and negative binomial versions of the modelwere initially fitted. In all cases, tests on the over-dispersionparameter showed that the negative binomial was preferred overthe Poisson. The chosen negative binomial models’ a, the over-dispersion parameter, was found to be positive and significantindicating that the data were over-dispersed. Likelihood Ratio teststatistics in all cases also confirmed the need for a panel ratherthan pooled regression. Table 2 reports the coefficient obtainedfrom fitting the contingent behaviour model, for the pooled andpanel negative binomial random effects panel specification(results of the pooled and panel poisson analysis are availablefrom authors upon request).

The number of trips taken to the beach were specified as afunction of travel cost,6 water sport participation, income, age,marital status, separate dummies for whether the respondent is amember of a sporting or environmental organisation, for whetherthe trip was a once off and unlikely to be repeated, and forwhether the respondent is in full time employment. A contingentbehaviour variable is also used, which is a dummy variablerepresenting whether the visits are actual, with current walkingfacilities, or hypothetical, with improved coastal access.

The coefficients in both the pooled and panel negative bino-mial model were found to be of the same sign and are also of asimilar magnitude. In the preferred panel negative binomialcontingent behaviour models (results of which are shown in lastcolumn of Table 2), the travel cost coefficient is significant at the1% level and has a negative sign. The contingent behaviourcoefficient is also highly significant and positive for the coastal

6 Travel cost is estimated as ((2(distance� h0.224 per mile))+0.25(hourly

wage))/Number of People in Vehicle over the age of 17. The distance variable is

multiplied by 2 to obtain the two-way trip distance, which was then multiplied by

the average petrol cost per mile (the Automobile Association of Ireland’s calcula-

tion of h0.224/mile obtained from http://www.aaireland.ie/infodesk/cost_of_mo

toring.asp). This is used as a proxy for the monetary travel cost. Following Shaw

and Feather [72] the opportunity cost of travel time is included in the travel cost

calculation as 0.25 (hourly wage) where the hourly wage rate was taken as the

individuals income divided by 2000, based on a 40 h week for 50 weeks in a year.

L. Barry et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 764–771 769

access scenario. This indicates that the hypothetical improve-ments in coastal access have a positive effect on the number ofplanned trips. Except for the employment variable all othercoefficients are significant and of the expected sign. The variable‘‘Member of Recreation or Environmental Organisation’’ is how-ever only significant at the 10% level. The Wald w2 statistic showsthat taken jointly, the coefficients in the preferred panel negativebinomial contingent behaviour model are significant at the 1%level. Ln(r) and Ln(s) in the panel data model of Table 2 areincluded to account for the fact that the inverse of 1 plus thedispersion is assumed to follow a Beta (r,s) distribution [73].

Prior to any improvements in the walking amenities at thebeach by the formal opening up of a cliff walk to allow access toan additional area of beach the consumer surplus per trip isestimated from our model to be h22.23 per person. The popula-tion estimate of per-trip consumer surplus is estimated with 95%confidence to be between h16.94 and h31.55. The estimatedaverage number of trips per year was 26. Total consumer surplusper visitor per year is average annual trips multiplied by surplusper trip, which amounts to h577.98 per year. To calculate theproportional change in consumer welfare from implementation ofa coastal walking trail, we first take into account the statedchange in trips to the beach site if the trail were to be put inplace. Such a facility improvement would increase visits from anestimated 26 to a predicted 31 trips per person per year. Thiscorresponds to an increase in consumer surplus of h111.15 perperson per year.

5. Discussion and conclusions

An important aim of this study was to establish whetherrespondents were willing to pay for the introduction of a trail,which would enable them to walk along and make use of thecoastline and open up a whole new length of beach beside theexisting beach facility. Similar to Hanemann et al. [74] and Lew andLarson [26] this present study finds that increasing the area of beachavailable to the recreationist (in our case through the provision ofthe cliff path joining the two areas) has a significant and positiveimpact on the welfare of the respondents. Silverstrand beach issituated approximately 7 km from Salthill beach, another blue flagbeach, which has easy access and good facilities for recreationalwalking and is located much closer to Galway city. Neverthelessindividuals still choose to make the trip to Silverstrand and increasetheir travel cost because the incremental utility they gain fromattending a quieter and more natural beach with good conditions forcertain water sports is evidently worth the expense.

With respect to willingness to pay, the contingent behaviourmethod used in this study produces what appear to be reasonableresults. Willingness-to-pay is price-sensitive and income sensitiveand the results of this present study are comparable with thosenoted in the literature for similar valuation studies [3,4]. Thisstudy found that mean willingness to pay (i.e. consumer surplusplus travel cost) of the average recreationist using Silverstrandbeach is h22 per trip. The increase in CS associated with theintroduction of the trail is estimated at h111.15 per person peryear. The per trip estimates are similar to recent approximationsof the value of walking recreation days ranging from a meanwillingness to pay of h41.92 per person per trip to a coastal site inrural Connemara [4] and $13.70 to h92.40 per person per trip toaccess the California coastline [3].

This analysis indicates that the water sports coefficient ishighly significant and positive for the coastal access scenario.This indicates that the hypothetical improvements in coastalaccess have a positive effect on the number of planned trips bythose who take part in water sports activities such as kite surfing

or windsurfing, both of which require similar conditions to beconducted.

This study also finds that members of a Recreation or Environ-mental Organisation are more likely to increase the number oftrips if a coastal trail was included compared with non-members.Given this representation, local recreational groups such as theGalway Kite surfing Association may provide a means of repre-senting recreational users and for improving the amenity value ofthe local coastline. Indeed, several studies from the literaturehighlight the role of recreational groups in preventing naturalresource degradation, facilitating sustainable tourism at the locallevel and encouraging outdoor recreational activities for theirhealth benefits [49,75–77].

Silverstrand is one of the most popular beaches in Co. Galwayand is visited by thousands of individuals each year, drawn by theblue flag status of the beach, its close proximity to Galway city,outstanding scenic beauty and easy access. The local economybenefits greatly from this recreational tourism including local hotels,guesthouses and catering businesses. Increasing the amenity valueof the beach through the formal establishment of the cliff walk toallow access to an additional area of beach would increase thenumber of visits and therefore should also enhance the economicimpact from the additional tourism activity in the locality.

While this paper has highlighted the substantial welfare benefitsthat may exist for recreationist from additional coastal accessprovision many of the benefits would be realised in terms of localexpenditure and, indirectly, in terms of maintenance of local servicesand investment in local infrastructure. The experience of othercountries is that many farmers have tapped into the tourismresource directly and, even while others may not have the opportu-nity or made the choice to do so, there are still indirect benefits.Coastal policy in Ireland needs to recognise the existing and latentdemand for outdoor recreation and sports along Ireland’s coast whileat the same time encouraging farmers and other coastal landownersto develop business opportunities and add value to farm activity byharvesting the potential that recreational activities along the coast(a fast growing niche area in the Irish tourism market) offers.

While it is acknowledged that farmers do face external costs byallowing recreational access through their land such as nuisanceeffects that can interfere with the business of farming [15,65], itshould also be recognised that, as a community, they are already inreceipt of very significant public transfers and it has been stronglyargued that further agricultural policy support should not be givenfor providing recreational access. Bauer et al. [78] and Morris et al.[16] also emphasise the significance of public access to recreationist.These nuisance effects are now acknowledged however and anumber of statutory bodies and local groups such as the Ministryfor Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Comhairle Na Tuaitheand the Wicklow Uplands Council partnership have provided solu-tions to the issue [67]. This work needs to continue, it should beextended to selected areas of the Irish coastline and these agenciesand groups also need to work to persuade farmers of the economicbenefits of rural tourism as a whole.

There is also a need for more work to be done on identifyingthe needs of different recreation users. Clearly different beachesoffer different facilities to different users. This point has also beenmade by Hanley et al. [2] and Morgan [1] where they emphasisethe need to develop a rating system for beaches and the coastline.Such a system would consider differences in user preferences aswell as safety standards and thereby promote beaches based ontheir relative strengths. No such system exists in Ireland at thepresent time. This is essential if Ireland is to respond to recrea-tional demands made of the coastline and to capture the eco-nomic benefits associated with coastal tourism.

A recent report by the European Commission suggests thatIreland has not been particularly successful at doing this.

L. Barry et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 764–771770

The report noted that although Ireland’s potential for coastalrecreational development is among the highest in Europe due toits extensive coastline, Ireland, unlike many of its Europeanneighbours had failed to capture many of the economic benefitsassociated with coastal recreational tourism [79]. This Reportidentifies the lack of investment in coastal recreation and thenecessary infrastructure and highlights the potential for tourismand employment, in an area where Ireland has yet to reap thebenefits in the context of a national initiative. Finally, recognitionof the demand for non-market public goods by the relevantcoastal managers and policymakers is vital and needs to befollowed up by appropriate action to maximise the utility asso-ciated with the resource. Whether, for example, it is the provisionof trails to encourage walking and increase access along the coastfor further recreation or an increased conservation effort in orderto maintain the natural beauty of the resource for the biocentricuser. With such a contrast values must first be placed on theseresources to ensure that policy is accurately focused.

References

[1] Morgan R. A novel, user-based rating system for tourist beaches. TourismManagement 1999;20(4):393–410.

[2] Hanley N, Bell D, Alvarez-Farizo B. Valuing the benefits of coastal waterquality improvements using contingent and real behaviour. Environmentaland Resource Economics 2003;24(3):273–85.

[3] McGonagle MP, Swallow KS. Open space and public access: a contingentchoice application to coastal preservation. Land Economics 2005;81(4):477–95.

[4] Hynes S, Buckley C, van Rensburg TM. Recreational pursuits on marginal farmland: a discrete-choice model of Irish farm commonage recreation. Economicand Social Review 2007;38(1):63–84.

[5] Wilson MA, Costanza R, Boumans R, Liu S. Integrated assessment andvaluation of ecosystem goods and services provided by coastal systems. In:Wilson JG, editor. The intertidal ecosystem: the value of Ireland’s shores,1-24. Dublin: The Royal Irish Academy; 2005.

[6] Failte Ireland. Tourism adventure and activity holidays update: the currentmarket. Available at: /http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteCorp/media/FailteIreland/documents/Research%20and%20Statistics/Tourism%20Activities/Tourism-Adventure-and-Activity-Forum.pdfS; 2009 [accessed 10 October 2010].

[7] Fitzpatrick Associates. The economic value of trails & forest recreation inIreland. Available at: /http://www.coillte.ie/publications/Final%20Economic%20Study%20S; 2005 [accessed on 5th January 2010].

[8] HM Government. Draft marine bill, cm 7351. The Stationery Office, HMGovernment, London, 2008.

[9] House of Commons. Draft marine bill: coastal access provisions. Environ-ment, food and rural affairs committee. vol. I. HC656-I. Stationery Office, HMGovernment, London, 2008.

[10] Kay G, Moxham N. Paths for whom? Countryside access for recreationalwalking. Leisure Studies 1996;15(3):171–83.

[11] Millward H. Countryside recreational access in the United States: a statisticalcomparison of rural districts. Annals of the Association of American Geo-graphers 1996;86(1):102–22.

[12] Christie M. An assessment of the economic effectiveness of recreation policyusing contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Manage-ment 1999;42(4):547–64.

[13] Crabtree B, Potts J, Smart T. Statistical modelling of incentive design underlimited information—the case of public access to farmland. Journal ofAgricultural Economics 2000;51(2):239–51.

[14] Bennett RM, Tranter RB, Blaney RJP. The value of countryside access:a contingent valuation survey of visitors to the ridgeway national trail inthe United Kingdom. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management2003;46(5):659–71.

[15] Buckley C, van Rensburg TM, Hynes S. Recreational demand for farmcommonage in Ireland: a contingent valuation assessment. Land Use Policy2009;26(3):846–54.

[16] Morris J, Colombo S, Angus A, Stacey K, Parsons D, Brawn M, et al. The valueof public rights of way: a choice experiment in Bedfordshire, England.Landscape and Urban Planning 2009;93(1):83–91.

[17] McConnell KE. Congestion and willingness to pay: a study of beach use. LandEconomics 1977;53(2):185–95.

[18] Kaoru Y. Differentiating use and nonuse values for coastal pond waterquality improvements. Environmental and Resource Economics 1993;3(5):487–94.

[19] Morgan R, Jones TC, Williams AT. Opinions and perceptions of England andWales Heritage Coast beach users: some management implications from theGlamorgan Heritage Coast, Wales. Journal of Coastal Research 1993;9(4):1083–93.

[20] Le Goffe P. The benefits of improvements in coastal water quality:a contingent approach. Journal of Environmental Management 1995;45(4):305–17.

[21] Priskin J. Tourist perceptions of degradation caused by coastal nature-basedrecreation. Environmental Management 2003;32(2):189–204.

[22] Shivlani MP, Letson D, Theis M. Visitor preferences for public beach amenitiesand beach restoration in South Florida. Coastal Management 2003;31(4):367–86.

[23] Silberman J, Klock M. The recreation benefits of beach nourishment. Oceanand Shoreline Management 1988;11:73–90.

[24] Tudor DT, Williams AT. Public perception and opinion of visible beachaesthetic pollution: the utilisation of photography. Journal of CoastalResearch 2003;19(4):1104–15.

[25] Chen W, Hong H, Liu Y, Zhang L, Hou X, Raymond M. Recreation demand andeconomic value: an application of travel cost method for Xiamen Island.China Economic Review 2004;15(4):398–406.

[26] Lew D, Larson D. Valuing recreation and amenities at San Diego countybeaches. Coastal Management 2005;33(1):71–86.

[27] Villares M, Roca E, Serra J, Montori C. Social perception as a tool for beachplanning: a case study on the Catalan coast. Journal of Coastal Research2006;SI 48:118–23.

[28] Oh C, Dixon AW, Mielde JW, Draper J. Valuing visitors’ economic benefits ofpublic beach access points. Ocean and Coastal Management 2008;51(12):847–53.

[29] Whitehead JC, Dumas CF, Herstine J, Hill J, Buerger B. Valuing beach accessand width with revealed and stated preference data. Marine ResourceEconomics 2008;23(2):119–35.

[30] Lazarow N, Miller ML, Blackwell B. The value of recreational surfing tosociety. Tourism in Marine Environments 2009;5(2/3):145–58.

[31] Tunstall SM, Penning-Rowsell EC. The English beach: experiences and values.The Geographical Journal 1998;164(3):319–32.

[32] MacLeod M, da Silva CP, Cooper JAG. A comparative study of the perceptionand value of beaches in rural Ireland and Portugal: implications for coastalmanagement. Journal of Coastal Research 2002;18(1):14–24.

[33] Wolch J, Zhang J. Beach recreation, cultural diversity and attitudes towardnature. Journal of Leisure Research 2004;36(3):414–43.

[34] Roca E, Villares M, Ortego MI. Assessing public perceptions on beach qualityaccording to beach users’ profile: a case study in the Costa Brava (Spain).Tourism Management 2009;30(4):598–607.

[35] Bowes M, Krutilla J. Multiple use management: the economics of publicforestlands. Washington DC: Resources for the Future; 1989.

[36] van Rensburg TM, Mill GA, Common M, Lovett J. Preferences and multiple useforest management. Ecological Economics 2002;43(2–3):231–44.

[37] Mill GA, van Rensburg TM, Hynes S, Dooley C. Preferences for multiple useforest management in Ireland: citizen and consumer perspectives. EcologicalEconomics 2007;60(3):642–53.

[38] Daugstad K. Negotiating landscape in rural tourism. Annals of TourismResearch 2008;35(2):402–26.

[39] Burger J. Assessing perceptions about ecosystem health and restorationoptions in three east coast estuaries. Environmental Monitoring and Assess-ment 2003;83(2):145–62.

[40] Sugiyama T, Francis J, Middleton NJ, Owen N, Giles-Corti B. Associationsbetween recreational walking and attractiveness, size and proximity ofneighborhood open spaces. American Journal of Public Health 2010;100(9):1752–7.

[41] Rees SE, Rodwell LD, Attrill MJ, Austen MC, Mangi SC. The value of marinebiodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application tomarine spatial planning. Marine Policy 2010;34(5):868–75.

[42] Galway City Council. Galway city recreation and amenity needs study.Galway: Galway City Council, Co.; 2008.

[43] Sharpley R. Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism diversification: thecase of Cyprus. Tourism Management 1996;23(3):233–44.

[44] Tansey and Associates. The impact of tourism on the Irish Economy. The Irishtourist industry confederation. Available at: /http://itic.ie/79.htmlS; 2002[accessed 10th November 2010].

[45] NDP. National development plan 2007–2013. Transforming Ireland. Dublin:the stationery office Irish government, 2007.

[46] Hummelbrunner R, Miglbauer E. Tourism promotion and potential in periph-eral areas: the Austrian case. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1994;2(1):41–50.

[47] Garrod B, Wornell R, Younell R. Re-conceptualising rural resources as country-side capital: the case of rural tourism. Journal of Rural Studies 2005;22(1):117–28.

[48] Vaughan DR, Farr H, Slee RW. Economic benefits of visitor spending. LeisureStudies 2000;19(2):95–118.

[49] Vail D, Heldt T. Governing snowmobilers in multiple use landscapes: Swedishand Maine cases. Ecological Economics 2004;48(4):469–83.

[50] Failte Ireland. Hiking/walking 2007. Available at: /http://www.failteireland.ie/getdoc/9c7a56d2-299D-460D-943f-b34639f0f07f/Hiking-2007S; 2008[accessed 6th January 2010].

[51] Dwyer L, Forsyth P. Assessing the benefits and costs of inbound tourism.Annals of Tourism Research 1993;20(4):751–8.

[52] Fewster J. Walking—social, health and economic benefits, and the law. Proceed-ings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Municipal Engineer 2004;157(2):111–5.

L. Barry et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 764–771 771

[53] Chang CP, Lee CC. Tourism development and economic growth: a closer lookat panels. Tourism Management 2008;29(1):180–92.

[54] Cook A. Recreation value of a new long-distance walking track. TourismEconomics 2008;14(2):377–91.

[55] Bold V, Gillespie S. The Southern Upland Way: exploring landscape andculture. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2009;15(2–3):245–57.

[56] Southwick R, Bergstrom J, Wall C. The economic contributions of humanpowered recreation to the US economy. Tourism Economics 2009;15(4):709–33.

[57] Bergstrom JC, Cordell HK, Ashley GA, Watson AE. Economic impacts ofrecreational spending on rural areas: a case study. Economic DevelopmentQuarterly 1990;4(1):29–39.

[58] Andersson K, Eklund E, Lehtola M. Farmers, businessmen or green entrepre-neurs? Producers of new rural goods and services in rural areas under urbanpressure. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2009;11(1):29–43.

[59] Das BR, Rainey DV. Agritourism in the Arkansaw Delta Byways: assessing theeconomic impacts. International Journal of Tourism Research 2010;12(3):265–80.

[60] Lorio M, Corsale A. Rural tourism and livelihood strategies in Romania.Journal of Rural Studies 2010;26(2):152–62.

[61] Choo H, Jamal T. Tourism on organic farms in South Korea: a new form ofecotourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2009;17(4):431–54.

[62] Keske CM, Loomis JB. Regional economic contribution and net economicvalues of opening access to three Colorado Fourteeners. Tourism Economics2008;14(2):249–62.

[63] Barbieri C, Mahoney E. Why is diversification an attractive farm adjustmentstrategy? Insights from Texas farmers and ranchers. Journal of Rural Studies2009;25(1):58–66.

[64] Flegg E. Freedom to roam? Countryside Recreation 2004;12(2):24–7.[65] Buckley C, Hynes S, van Rensburg TM, Doherty E. Walking in the Irish

countryside—landowner preferences and attitudes to improved public accessprovision. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009;52(8):1053–70.

[66] O’Cuiv E. O’Cuiv launches Comhairle na Tuaithe. Available at: /http://www.pobail.ie/en/PressReleases/2004/February/htmltext,4050,en.htmlS; 2004[accessed 1 March 2004].

[67] Comhairle na Tuaithe. National countryside recreation strategy. Available at:/http://www.pobail.ie/en/RuralDevelopment/ComhairlenaTuaithe/file,8590,en.pdfS; 2006 [accessed 4th January 2010].

[68] Christie M, Hanley N, Hynes S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreationusing choice experiments and contingent behaviour methods. Journal ofForest Economics 2007;13(2):75–102.

[69] Creel MD, Loomis JB. Theoretical and empirical advantages of truncatedcount data estimators for analysis of deer hunting in California. AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics 1990;72(2):434–41.

[70] Hynes S, Hanley N. Preservation versus development on Irish Rivers: white-water kayaking and hydro power in Ireland. Land Use Policy 2006;23:170–80.

[71] Hellerstein D, Mendelsohn R. A theoretical foundation for data models.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1993;75(3):604–11.

[72] Shaw WD, Feather P. Possibilities for including the opportunity cost of timein recreation demand systems. Land Economics 1999;75(4):592–602.

[73] Hausman J, Hall B, Griliches Z. Econometric models for count data with anapplication to the Patents-R & D relationship. Econometrica 1984;52(4):273–85.

[74] Hanemann M, Pendleton L, Mohn C, Hilger J, Kurisawa K, Layton D, et al.Using revealed preference models to estimate the effect of coastal waterquality on beach choice in Southern California. Report to U.S. Department ofCommerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2004.

[75] Fullilove MT. Promoting social cohesion to improve health. Journal ofAmerican Medical Women’s Association 1998;53(2):72–6.

[76] Trakolis D. Local people’s perceptions of planning and management issues inPrespes Lakes National Park, Greece. Journal of Environmental Management2001;61(3):227–41.

[77] Shafer EL, Choi Y. Forging nature-based tourism policy issues: a case studyfrom Pennsylvania. Tourism Management 2006;27(4):615–28.

[78] Bauer DM, Cyr NE, Swallow SK. Public preferences for compensatory mitiga-tion of salt marsh losses: a contingent choice of alternatives. ConservationBiology 2004;18(2):401–4111.

[79] European Commission. An assessment of the socio-economic cost & benefitsof integrated coastal zone management. Scotland: Firn Crichton Roberts Ltd.and Graduate School of Environmental Studies, University of Strathclyde;2000.