Search

Highlights • Including the economic value of recreation in report cards is recent. • Recreation values were estimated for the Gladstone Harbour Report Card. • The transferability of these values for use in other report cards is tested. • A transfer error of 73% is applied as an acceptable level for report cards. • The results suggest values are transferable across regions. Abstract Including socio-economic indicators in aquatic health report cards is becoming more common place, with the Gladstone Harbour Report Card a pioneering example in Australia. There has been limited consensus about the selection and range of social and economic indicators applied in different aquatic report cards. However, because tourism and recreation are one of the main ways people experience and enjoy aquatic resources, particularly in coastal areas, these uses have typically been included as socio-economic indicators. Estimating the economic value of recreation is more challenging than for tourism as specialist nonmarket valuation techniques are required, which can be expensive and time consuming to apply. One alternative is to estimate the economic benefits of outdoor recreation from secondary sources in a process known as benefit transfer. The aim of this study is to test the transferability of the recreation values estimated for the Gladstone Harbour Report Card for application in other similar report cards. A paucity of similar valuation studies limited the scope for comparison. An alternative approach was employed where an existing dataset was analysed to test for cross regional similarity and the results applied to infer the transferability of the Gladstone Harbour value for beach recreation. The results indicate that regional values for beach recreation are generally transferable across the large area (1400 km) of the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone and should be applicable elsewhere. However, the valuation scope can influence transferability and broader regional valuations are more transferable than smaller scale valuations. It is suggested that while for some purposes a more statistically robust definition of value equivalence maybe required, it is not necessary for report card purposes and transfer errors of up to 73% are acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Industrial harbours are a complex interface between environmental, economic and social systems. Trying to manage the social and economic needs of the community while maintaining the integrity of environmental ecosystems is complicated, as is the identification and evaluation of the various factors that underpin the drivers of economic, community and resource condition. An increasingly popular strategy to deal with the identification and evaluation challenges in complex human-environmental systems is to use a report card system which can be used as a summary assessment tool to monitor the health of aquatic ecosystems. To date though these have largely focused on environmental factors, and it is only very recently that attempts are being made to include social, cultural and economic indicators. There has been limited consensus in the selection of social and economic indicators applied in different aquatic report cards but as recreation is such an important activity, typically some measure of recreation benefit is included. However, there has been no commonality in the measures applied to assess its performance as an economic indicator. This paper is focused on the assessment of recreational benefits as an indicator of economic value in the report card for Gladstone Harbour in Queensland, Australia. It is the first aquatic health report card to include an assessment of the nonmarket value of recreation which makes it a more comprehensive indicator of economic value compared to other report cards based on measures of employment, participation or expenditure. There have now been three consecutive years of reporting (2014–2016) of the Gladstone Harbour report card, and the results indicate that the recreation index appears to be effective in monitoring changes over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 15 years Australia has been trialling conservation tenders and other market based instrument approaches to generate environmental outcomes, particularly on private lands. The best known of these is the BushTender auction for vegetation protection in Victoria, begun in the early 2000s. Subsequently, nearly 100 other tenders for biodiversity protection have been run in Australia with substantial variations in application and methodology generated by a mix of both intended design and case study differences. The number of separate conservation tenders that have been performed, and the variations in environmental targets, state jurisdictions, case study circumstances, design and implementation, provides a rich data base of projects for analysis – unique at the international level. The review section of the paper covers three broad areas. The first aim is to provide an overview of the various tenders and their history and design in different settings. The second is to review their application, particularly in relation to auction design, metric design and contract design aspects, while the third is to identify the extent to which tenders provided more cost-effective outcomes than alternatives such a fixed rate grants. An additional goal is to explain why, after so many trials, conservation tenders are not more widely used in Australia. Key conclusions are that the multiple trials show that tenders are robust, relatively simple to apply and deliver more cost-effective allocations of public funding than other grant mechanisms. The reasons for their limited use can be related more to political and bureaucratic forces and inertia rather than to economic and design limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluating land use change in economic frameworks often requires non-market values to be assessed. However non-market valuation experiments can be sensitive to the way the tradeoffs are framed. The aim of the research reported in this paper was to examine the influence of varying the valuation scope and combination of attributes in a split sample choice experiment focused on assessing the impacts of increased mining activity (coal and coal seam gas) in the Surat Basin in southern Queensland, Australia. The region had traditionally been dominated by the agricultural sector. The survey was designed to assess the largely, but not exclusively, non-use values of a distant population (Brisbane (capital city) residents) for tradeoffs between positive and negative impacts, which incorporated economic, social and environmental issues. Four impact attributes were identified: (A) local jobs in the mining sector; (B) house prices in the non-mining sector; (C) wage rates in the non-mining sector, and (D) inspections and independent monitoring activity at coal seam gas mining sites (a proxy to address environmental concerns). The results indicate that varying the combination of attributes had a significant influence on preferences and welfare estimates, which varied across attributes and valuation formats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discrete choice experiments have been used in this case study to assess community benefits for the control of red imported fire ants, an aggressive ant species that were introduced by accident in 2001 to Brisbane, Australia. This invasive species could have substantial impacts on agricultural production, biodiversity, ecosystem services, infrastructure and communities. Values for avoiding impacts on three particular land uses have been assessed in this study with discrete choice experiments. The results indicated that on a per hectare basis, the value estimates to avoid infestation in public areas (schools and parks), were much higher than for private areas (housing) or natural bushland areas (protected native vegetation). There were high levels of support for eradication rather than containment strategies, despite the additional costs involved. The use of both random parameters logit and latent class models demonstrates that there is a significant heterogeneity in preferences and values for controlling or eradicating the invasive species, indicating that it may be challenging to gain and maintain political support for management options, particularly if these involve large costs or inconvenience to households. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Beaches in Australia are a national icon and internationally renowned. In Queensland, coastal areas and beach recreation attract domestic and international visitors, underpinning the tourist industry across the State. However, the activity of local residents, who use the beaches most frequently, is generally not recorded in official records, but has significant economic value. In the study outlined in this paper, the value of beach recreation by residents in Brisbane (the capital city and largest population centre in Queensland) was estimated using the Travel Cost Method. Negative binomial models were used to estimate values associated with both daytrips and overnight trips to beaches in different regional areas. It is estimated that Brisbane households make approximately 5.78 million daytrips and 2.97 million overnight trips to the beaches in southeast Queensland each year. This results in a total annual value of $1,039M ranging from $839M to $1,416M. Variations in value estimates for different regions indicate that there are important differences in the factors driving site selection between daytrips and overnight trips to the beach which have not been identified in this study and need to be considered if value estimates are to be considered for extrapolation to other situations. The research results also identified some methodological limitations in the application of a population-based approach to the valuation exercise rather than the more traditional site-based approach. Brisbane residents make an important contribution to the value of beach recreation in central and northern parts of the State, with households making approximately 0.27 million overnight trips per year. However, it was not possible to estimate travel cost models for beaches in these regions because there were low visitation rates and insufficient differentiation in visitation rates. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: There is increasing interest in the use of market-based instruments such as tenders and trading systems to address water quality issues. While the focus is typically on the improvements in resource allocation that are generated, these instruments also play an important role in addressing issues of asymmetric information. The use of water quality tenders to reveal the opportunity costs of changing agricultural practices can help policy makers to understand the potential costs of misallocating public resources and to design better ways of achieving water quality improvements. This role of water quality tenders to reveal opportunity costs is demonstrated by reporting four pilot applications to improve water quality into the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The results demonstrate the potential for opportunity costs to vary substantially between agricultural producers, and across industries, catchments and pollutants. The results from these case studies indicate that the most cost-effective water quality improvements may be generated from the horticulture and dairy sectors. In contrast, the opportunity costs of reducing emissions from the cane and grazing industries appear to be higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The focus of this paper is to compare different evaluation frameworks for selecting landholder proposals to improve water quality. The case study is a water quality tender performed in the Burdekin region in Northern Australia in 2007/2008 where bids could be assessed using an inputs-based best management practice scorecard or an outputs-based auction metric. The scorecard approach and other variants of multi-criteria analysis are commonly applied in grant schemes, where landholder proposals are rated by a range of inputs-based criteria. Output-based approaches are typically applied in water quality and conservation tenders, where an environmental benefits index is constructed to summarise the environmental improvements generated by each proposal. These then allow projects to be selected on the basis of cost effectiveness. The case study evaluation reported in this paper demonstrates that the input focus of multi-criteria analysis type assessments are flawed, and that the efficiency of public funding can be more than doubled using auction metrics to assess proposals for landholders to improve water quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In rangeland areas, improved biodiversity management can be achieved by changing the financial incentives facing land managers. Competitive tenders and fixed price grants can both be applied to achieve the same environmental outcomes. In the case study described in this paper, the efficiencies of the two methods are compared. Operationally, the two mechanisms are similar in both cost and process. Both mechanisms have very important indirect benefits of building skills and knowledge in both landholders and the implementing agency, and building trust between the two. However, the heterogeneity in landholders’ opportunity costs revealed in the competitive tender trial means a discriminatory price mechanism is more efficient at matching program costs with direct environmental benefits. In terms of transfer payments, the competitive tender was 30% more cost efficient than a fixed price grant scheme. While the initial design and development costs of a tender may be greater than a grant, there was no evidence of any difference in operating costs in this case study. There was also little evidence of any indirect costs associated with the tender process, but it may be too early to make a realistic assessment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]