




































African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Vol. 1 (3), pp. 064-071, October, 2013. 
Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 
 
 

 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

Valuing environmental impacts of coastal development 
projects: A choice experiment application in Spain 

 

David Hoyos
1
*, Pere Riera

2
, Javier Fernández-Macho

3
, Carmen Gallastegui

4
 and  

Dolores Garcia
5
 

 
1
Department of Applied Economics III (Econometrics and Statistics), University of the Basque Country, E48015 Bilbao, 

Spain. 
2
Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Campus UAB, E08193 

Bellaterra, Spain.  
3
Department of Applied Economics III (Econometrics and Statistics), Institute for Public Economics, University of 

the Basque Country E48015 Bilbao, Spain.  
4
Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis I, Institute for Public Economics, University of the Basque 

Country, E48015 Bilbao, Spain.  
5
Departament d'Economia Aplicada, Universitat de les Illes Balears, E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain. 

 
Accepted 22 July, 2013 

 
This paper presents the results of an empirical application aimed at estimating the economic value of 
the potential environmental impacts to mount Jaizkibel (Spain) resulting from the construction of a new 
seaport over its hillside. A choice experiment technique is applied for an ex-ante natural resource 
damage assessment in monetary terms. The results revealed that, depending on the extent of the 
environmental damage, the social welfare loss would be between 172 and 535 million Euros per annum. 

 
Key words: Choice modelling, environmental valuation, social welfare, coastal management. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Sea coast is an appreciated natural resource for human 
beings because of the ecological, cultural, social and 
economic values it bears. Human settlements have 
historically established near the coast. With just 4% of  
Earth’s total land area, coastal areas and small islands 
house more than one-third of the world’s population  
(Barbier et al., 2008). This is also the case of Spain. With 
a coastline 8,000 km long (4,000 km of cliffs, 2,000 km of 
beaches, 1,000 km of low coast, and around 600 km of 
artificial areas), it is estimated that nearly half of its 
population live in its coastal zones. Human pressure over 
the Iberian coast has increased over the last decades. In 
the Basque Country, a Spanish region in the North of the 
Iberian Peninsula, land artificialisation has grown 14% 
between 1987 and 2000, and the surface occupied by 
seaport areas has grown 72% for the same period, from 
 
 
 
*Corresponding author. E-mail: david.hoyos@ehu.es. 

 
 
 

 
nearly 366 ha in 1987 to 629 ha in 2000 (OSE, 2007). 
Developmental monetary benefits are often raised as a 
justification for diverse coast artificialisation projects, but 
they are rarely confronted with the environmental benefits 
that its conservation may entail. The absence of a 
monetary expression for the goods and services provided 
by coastal natural ecosystems often implies that they are 
implicitly equalled to zero. Scarcity of quantitative 
information for policy decision making has often been a 
concern of coastal managers (Christie and White, 1997; 
Chua, 1993).  

Economic valuation aims at providing estimates of 
willingness-to-pay (WTP) of citizens to achieve/avoid 
certain environmental quality changes. Different 
economic valuation techniques have appeared to 
estimate in monetary terms the value of non-market 
goods. Existing approaches are broadly grouped into 
revealed preferences methods (like hedonic pricing and 
travel cost) or stated preferences methods (like 
contingent valuation and choice experiments). Stated 



Hoyos  et al.               064 
 
 

 
preference methods have received growing attention 
mainly due to their flexibility and ability to measure not 
just use values (as revealed preference methods) but 
non-use values of natural resources as well (Mitchell and 
Carson, 1989). The main difference between the 
Contingent Valuation Method and the Choice Experiment 
(CE) methodology is that while in the former individuals 
face the valuation of one good with varying prices, in the 
latter individuals face the valuation of a bunch of goods 
(or one good with multiple attributes) and different prices. 
The underlying idea of CEs is that if human-induced 
changes in the state of an ecosystem can be coherently 
represented by a group of attributes, people’s choices 
provide substantial information over their preferences 
regarding alternative states of the environment (Hoyos, 
2010).  

This paper examines the use of a CE methodology to 
assess the economic value of potential environmental 
impacts that could be associated with the construction of 
a new seaport over the hillside of mount Jaizkibel (Spain). 
Jaizkibel is a protected natural resort because of its 
landscape and geological interest as well as its fauna, 
flora, and seabed. The values obtained can be employed 
in an ex-ante assessment of the environmental costs 
associated with coastal development projects useful for 
decision making. 
 
 
Case study 
 
Pasaia, a city located on the Spanish Cantabrian coast, 
near the border with France, has had maritime and 
commercial activities in its natural port since the 12th 
century. Even though up to the 19th century it was mainly 
dedicated to ship building and fishing, its main activity 
during the 20th century has been the traffic of materials 
from heavy industry. In recent years, the Port Authority of 
Pasaia has promoted a project to develop a new seaport 
outside the bay, in front of mount Jaizkibel. Defenders of 
this project claim that it will be very profitable to the 
economic activity of the region while opponents argue 
that the environmental loss associated with the project 
advice against its construction. Figure 1 shows the 
current seaport (A) and three projected seaports (Seaport 
projects 1, 2 and 3), with different capacity and affections 
to Jaizkibel natural site.  

Mount Jaizkibel is a 2,434 ha natural site located at 1°  
50’ West longitude and 43° 22’ North latitude. It belongs 
to the European Natura 2000 Network because it is 
considered a site of Community importance for the 
Atlantic biogeographical region, thus protected under 
European environmental legislation (Habitat Directive 
92/43/EEC). The landscape of this area is especially 
interesting because the mountain goes along the coast 
with abrupt falls in the western part, forming cliffs up to 
240 m high. The cliffs are considered of geological 

 

  
 
 

 
interest due to the layout of sandy stratum. They host the 
Armeria euskadiensis, an endemic plant of the Basque 
coast catalogued as an endangered species. In the 
Eastern part, the terrain is not so abrupt and there are 
small beaches and precipices formed by the curse of 
streams ending in the Cantabrian Sea. In these areas, 
one can find some interesting species of flora such as 
tropical ferns (Woodwardia radicans and Trichomanes 
speciosum), very rare in the rest of Europe. Certain 
spaces maintain the original tree cover, oak grove of  
Quercus robur and Quercus pyrenaica. The rest of 
Jaizkibel conforms a non-wooded forest area with some 
brushes and some pastures associated to local baserri 
(autochthonous farms).  

Some colonies of lesser black-backed gull and yellow-
legged gull (Larus fuscus and Larus cachinnans) nest in  
Jaizkibel’s cliffs. Other interesting birds, such as the 
European storm-petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus), Green 
cormorant (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) and Peregrine 
falcon (Falco peregrinus) can be found in this natural 
area. Over the mainland there are numerous species of 
amphibious, reptiles and mammals such as Palmite newt 
(Triturus helveticus), Midwife toad (Alytes obstetricans), 
Dark green snake (Coluber viridiflavus) and Greater 
horseshue bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinun). In its 
seabed, it harbours different types of molluscs, sea 
urchins and crustaceans. Jaizkibel’s seabed also 
harbours various types of seaweed: green, red and 
brown. Furthermore, Jaizkibel has one of the most 
important lands of red seaweed of the Basque coast. In 
short, Jaizkibel’s most outstanding environmental 
attributes are: landscape, autochthonous fauna and flora, 
seabed life, and environmental services such as sweet 
water, clean air and maintaining of current stream, swell 
and sediment transportation regime.  

The construction of a new seaport would involve a 
number of different stressors that could damage natural 
site’s landscape values, habitats and species. The 
identification of potential damages was based on 
published reports, public institutions’ and NGOs’ reports 
and assessments made at the site. According to these 
information sources, anticipated environmental impacts 
related to the construction and operation of the seaport 
would include: direct loss of habitat, disturbance to 
sensitive habitats and species of avifauna, air pollution, 
increased human access to wildlife, risk of fire and other 
disturbance to sensitive habitats and species. Detailed 
information on the environmental values and potential 
damages to Jaizkibel may be found in Pozueta (2004). 
 
 
Survey design 
 
A valuation survey was conducted in the Basque Country 
in order to determine the value of the potential environ-
mental impacts to Jaizkibel area. The questionnaire 



065       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 1. Three scenarios for the future seaport of Pasaia. 

 
 

 
started by describing the Jaizkibel natural site. Next, 
certain changes in the quality of mount Jaizkibel’s main 
attributes were described. It was stated that if the site 
was not to be protected in the future, it could be affected 
by human activities. The market institution was detailed 
next, where compulsory monetary contributions from the 
Basque residents would contribute to the conservation of 
the site. The trade-offs between payments and degree of 
preservation of the different attributes were presented in 
choice sets of two alternatives and an opt-out situation, 
as will be detailed shortly. The final part of the 
questionnaire was devoted to some debriefing and 
sociodemographic questions. The selection of attributes 
and levels is an important aspect in CE given that 
respondents are to make choices characterized by those 
attributes and levels (Hensher, 2007). Previous 
investigation on environmental characteristics of Jaizkibel 
natural site, experts’ advice and focus groups facilitated 
the definition of environmental attributes and levels of 
provision. Furthermore, a pilot survey using open-ended 
contingent valuation questions helped in identifying the 
appropriate levels of the payment attribute.  

At the beginning, six non-monetary attributes were 
identified: landscape, flora, avifauna, seabed, ground-
water and air quality. However, the last two attributes 

 
 

 
(groundwater and air quality) were dropped mainly 
because of their relative little importance as suggested by 
experts and focus groups. Table 1 reflects the attributes 
and levels considered in this study. They were, 
 
(1) Landscape, measured by the percentage surface 
from which today’s landscape could be seen in the future;   
(2) Flora, measured by the future level of protection of 
today’s population of A. euskadiensis endemism;   
(3) Avifauna, measured by the future level of protection of 
today’s population of lesser and peregrine falcons;   
(4) Seabed, measured by the future level of protection of 
today’s extension of red algae; and  
(5) Annual contribution in euros, varying from 5 to 100 €.  

 
Respondents’ understanding of the valuation exercise is 
a critical aspect of any stated preference survey. 
Accordingly, the graphic and verbal description of the 
future environmental changes for the non-monetary 
attributes was tested in detail in focus groups. Landscape 
changes seemed to be better understood showing 
pictures with a different degree of visual affection, as 
shown in Figure 2. The importance of flora, fauna and 
seabed attributes seemed to be better captured by its 
most prominent species, the A. euskadiensis, the lesser 



          

 Table 1. Attributes and levels considered.        
           

 Attribute    Level      

 Landscape (%) 40* 60 80 100      

 Flora (%) 50* 70 85 10      

 Fauna (%) 25* 50 75 100      

 Seabed (%) 50* 70 85 100      

 Annual payment 0 €* 5 € 10 € 15 € 20 € 30 € 50 € 100 €  
 
*Business-as-usual level. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 2. Example of choice set with different protection alternatives used in the 
valuation exercise. 

 

 
and  peregrine  falcon,  and  the  red  algae  respectively.  
These attributes’ graphical representation corresponded 
with the actual location of these species’ populations 
according to the experts’ advice. When the percentages 
of protection of these attributes were inferior to 100%, 
some actual location of its most prominent species’ 
populations were deleted accordingly (Figure 2). None of 
the levels of protection were set to zero in order to avoid 
plausibility problems related to the survival of different 
species.  

Combining all these attributes and levels, near two 

thousand different combinations are obtained (4
4
x7

1
). A 

main effects fractional factorial design with second order 
interactions was used to reduce the number of 
alternatives to 96 pairs of protection alternatives 
(Louviere et al., 2000). Further, the alternatives were 

 

 
grouped in 24 blocks of four choice sets containing two 
alternative protection programmes plus the business-as-
usual (BAU) option. The burden of the choice task was 
checked in the focus groups. As a result, the final version 
of the questionnaire had four choice sets, each formed by 
the BAU option plus two protection alternative programs 
(Programs A and B) as shown in Figure 2. The proposed 
payment vehicle was an annual contribution to a 
Foundation exclusively dedicated to protecting Jaizkibel 
natural site that all Basque citizens would have to make.  

The questionnaire was administered through in-person 
computer-aided individual home interviews. Respondents 
could read the questions in the computer’s screen and 
listen to a recorded voice, with three different languages 
available: Basque, Spanish and French. The relevant 
population considered was the population from the 

Hoyos  et al.               066 



067       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
Basque Country, accounting for 2.5 million people being 
at least 18 years old. A pilot survey was conducted in 
October 2006, while the final survey was undertaken 
between November and December, 2006. A stratified 
random sample of 600 individuals was selected from the 
relevant population. The strata used included age, gender 
and size of the town of residence, following official 
statistical information from the Basque Statistics Institute 
(EUSTAT). In each location, the questionnaires were 
distributed using random survey routes. 
 
 
METHODOLOGY 
 
CE belongs to the family of conjoint analysis methods, defined by 
Green and Srinivasan (1990) as “any decompositional method that 
estimates the structure of a consumer’s preferences given his or 
her overall evaluations of a set of alternatives that are pre-specified 
in terms of levels of different attributes.” Choice experiments 
technique is based on Lancaster’s characteristics theory of value 
and random utility theory (Hanley et al., 1998). Following random 
utility theory, consumers pursue the maximisation of utility in 
decision-making processes. Thus, the utility an individual i obtains 
from alternative j (Uij) can be formalised as; 
 

Uij  Vij  ij , 
 
where Vij is the part of utility that is observable (and thus affected by 

the attributes of this option), and εij is the non-observable part or 
random component. As a consequence, individual i will choose 
alternative j instead of k if her utility increases, this is, if: 
 
Uij > Uik for k≠j 
 
However, given the existence of a random component, the choices 
can be written in probability terms. The probability that individual i 
chooses alternative j instead of k from a finite set of alternatives C, 
would be: 
 

Pij  ProbVij  ij  Vik  ik;k C. 
 
The stochastic component of utility is usually assumed to be 
independent and identically distributed (IID) and Gumbel distributed 
(McFadden, 1974). Thus, the conditional logit model can be written 
as:  

Pij   
eVij 

 

   

m  

  

 k 1 e
Vik 

 

 , 
 

 
where ω is a scale parameter, which is inversely proportional to the 
error term’s standard deviation and it is generally assumed to be 
one so that the variance of the error term is constant.  

The equation aforestated can be estimated by means of a 
multinomial logit (MNL) regression. The MNL model relies on the 
assumption that choices are consistent with the Independence of 
Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). This axiom states that the ratio of the 
probabilities of choosing one alternative over another is not affected 
by the presence or absence of other alternatives in the same choice 
set (Louviere et al., 2000). In case of violation of IIA, the parameters 
estimation would be biased. The IIA property is usually 

 
 
 
 
checked using the test proposed by Hausman and McFadden 
(1984). The structure of the MNL model depends on the form 
adopted by the indirect utility function. To estimate the main effects, 
an additive indirect utility function of the following form may be 
used: 
 
Vij   0  1Atrib1   2 Atrib2   3 Atrib3  ...  nAtribn 

 
where β0 is the constant term and β1 … βn are the coefficients of 
environmental attributes.  
The constant term, β0 (that can be interpreted as a vector of 
alternative specific constants, one for each alternative considered 
in the choice set) reflects the influence on choice of non-observed 
attributes relative to specific alternatives. Alternative specific 
parameters, however, may be dropped in dealing with non-labelled 
experiments (Hensher et al., 2005). Individual marginal WTP 
estimates represent the average maximum amount of money a 
person is willing to give in exchange for an additional unit of the 
environmental good, that is they represent estimations, ceteris 
paribus, of the value of a marginal change in a given attribute. In 
order to estimate the WTP, the interaction between multiple 
attributes, if relevant, is to be taken into account as well as the 
influence of the alternative specific constant. Welfare estimates for 
MNL models may be obtained from 
 

CS  
 1   

 

      

ln e
Vi

 
0 ln e

Vi1   

 
 

    , 
 

 
where CS represents the compensating surplus, α is the marginal 
utility of income, and Vi0 and Vi1 are the indirect utility functions of 
alternative i in the status quo (0) and in the change considered (1). 
In our case, the previous expression can be rewritten as: 
 

CS  
 1 

 landscape 


 
 

avifauna 


seabed   

  

flora 
 

   

 cos t     
 

       

 
And simplifying the aforestated equation, the marginal value of a 
change in one attribute with respect to another is measured through 
the ratio of both coefficients. Therefore, the WTP for each of the 
environmental attributes is obtained by dividing the coefficient of 
each attribute by the cost attribute coefficient:  

WTP   attribute 

 cos t 
 
The cost parameter is interpreted as the marginal utility of income. 
 

 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
A fixed parameter logit model specification was estimated 
using LIMDEP econometric software (Greene, 2007). 
The results are shown in Table 2. All the coefficients of 
the environmental attributes have the expected signs 
(positive, meaning that conservation is more highly 
valued than loss) and are significant at 1% level. The 
negative coefficient of the price attribute is also expected, 
indicating that the probability of accepting an annual 



Hoyos  et al.               068 
 
 

 
Table 2. Fixed parameter logit model estimation. 

 
 Covariate (attribute) Coefficient t-Statistic 
 Landscape 0.02028 7,38 
 Flora 0.01272 3,79 
 Avifauna 0.00998 4,90 
 Seabed 0.00925 3,90 
 Cost -0.01462 -7,17 

 Log-likelihood  -590.4531 
 Log-likelihood at 0  -627.1635 
 Observations  687 

 
 

 
contribution for protecting mount Jaizkibel’s attributes 
decreases as the price increases. No relevant second 
order interactions were found. Regarding the IIA property 
(Hausman and McFadden, 1984), it was tested whether 
the full mode, estimated with all three alternative choices, 
was equivalent to a restricted model where one of the 
alternatives was eliminated. In every case, the null 
hypothesis that IIA holds for this data set cannot be 
rejected, as shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows point 
estimates and 95% confidence intervals of the marginal 
WTP estimates for the four attributes. The positive signs 
of the marginal WTP estimates for the environmental 
attributes indicate that, everything else being equal, 
respondents would be better off on average with an 
increase in the level of those attribute. The individual 
WTP for a 1% improvement of Jaizkibel’s landscape is 
estimated at 1.39 euros (2006) per person and year.  

Similarly, the WTP for a 1% improvement in the quality 
of the flora, avifauna and seabed is estimated at 0.87, 
0.68 and 0.63 euros per person and year respectively. 
Three damage scenarios to the environmental attributes 
of mount Jaizkibel can be approximated based on the 
expected impacts associated with the Seaport projects 
presented in Figure 1. The scenarios are based on the 
report by Pozueta (2004) and experts’ opinions. They 
took into account the current geographical location of the 
A. euskadiensis, the lesser black-backed gulls and 
peregrine falcons, and the red algae. Experts’ advice was 
followed in order to determine the specific impact of each 
harbour project on the population of these species. Figure 
3 summarises the main impacts of each project to the 
identified environmental attributes. This figure shows, for 
example, that the largest harbour project (seaport 1) 
would imply that 40% of current landscape, 50% of 
current flora, 25% of current fauna and 50% of current 
seabed would remain preserved in the future.  

Annual welfare loss due to the environmental 
degradation provoked in the construction of each future 
seaport was calculated using the compensating surplus 
equation for a linear additive utility function explained 
before. Table 5 shows the individual WTP estimates for 

 

  
 
 
 

Table 3. IIA/IID test statistics for the MNL model. 
 

Alternative dropped Χ2 Df Probability 
Business-as-usual 6.462 5 0.264 
Alternative 1 0.926 5 0.968 
Alternative 2 6.560 5 0.255 

 
 

 
Table 4. Marginal WTP for protecting mount Jaizkibel’s 
environmental attributes, in euros 2006 per person and year. 
 
 Attribute Marginal WTP 95% confidence interval 
 Landscape 1.39 (0.98,1.86) 
 Flora 0.87 (0.41,1.31) 
 Avifauna 0.68 (0.41,0.95) 
 Seabed 0.63 (0.33,0.96) 
 
95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Krinsky-Robb 
procedure (Krinsky and Robb, 1986). 
 
 
 
 
each scenario. The WTP corresponds to the mean 
amount of money, in 2006 values, that one individual 
would be willing to pay at most to avoid an environmental 
damage as described for each scenario. Thus, on 
average an individual would be willing to pay annually an 
average of 209 euros to avoid an environmental damage 
as described in the Seaport 1 degradation scenario, 134 
euros for the Seaport 2 degradation scenario and 67 
euros for the Seaport 3 degradation scenario. Finally, the 
annual welfare loss associated with the degradation 
scenarios described above is calculated by multiplying 
the mean WTP by the relevant population (2.5 million 
residents), as shown in Table 6. The annual welfare loss 
of the deterioration of the environmental quality of 
Jaizkibel associated to the harbour development may be 
estimated between 172 and 536 million euros, depending 
on the project to be undertaken. In the Seaport 1 
Scenario, annual welfare loss is estimated at 535 million 
euros (213 million for landscape, 110 for flora, 130 for 
avifauna and 81 for seabed). In the Seaport 2 Scenario, 
annual welfare loss is estimated at 344 million euros (142 
million for landscape, 66 for flora, 87 for avifauna and 49 
for seabed). And, in the Seaport 3 Scenario, annual 
welfare loss is estimated at 172 million euros (71 million 
for landscape, 33 for flora, 43 for avifauna and 24 for 
seabed).  

In sum, this empirical application has attempted to 
show how economic analysis can be used in coastal 
management in order to assess ex-ante the desirability of 
a development project according to its environmental 
effects. The ex ante assessment of potential environ-
mental impacts faces two significant shortcomings: 
absence of market prices for environmental damages 
and reliance on hypothetical behaviour that can only be 



069       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 3. Mount Jaizkibel estimated scenarios according to the impacts of three future seaport projects of 
Pasaia. 

 

 
Table 5. Compensating surplus for different degradation scenarios, in euros 2006 per person per year. 

 

Scenario 
 Level of damage  

Individual WTP  

Landscape (%)  Flora (%)  Avifauna (%)  Seabed (%)  

   
 

Seaport 1 60 50 75 50 208.74 (126.26-296.87) 
 

Seaport 2 40 30 50 30 134.17 (81.71-190.34) 
 

Seaport 3 20 15 25 15 67.09 (40.86-95.17) 
 

 

 
Table 6. Annual welfare loss, in millions of euros 2006. 

 
 WTP  Landscape Flora Avifauna Seabed Aggregate 

 

 
Seaport 1 

212.89 110.60 130.76 81.16 535.52 
 

 
(150.85-287.07) (52.57- 168.30) (78.32-183.22) (42.18-123.01) (323.93-761.61)  

   
 

 
Seaport 2 

141.93 66.36 87.17 48.76 344.22 
 

 
(100.57-191.38) (31.54-100.98) (52.21-122.15) (25.31-73.81) (209.63-488.32)  

   
 

 
Seaport 3 

70.96 33.18 43.59 24.38 172.11 
 

 

(50.28-95.69) (15.77-50.49) (26.11-61.07) (12.65-36.90) (104.82-244.16)  

   
 

 

 
captured by SP methods. The use of CE methodology in 
this context is thus justified by two reasons: first, as a SP 
non-market valuation technique, it allows to estimate 
hypothetical environmental quality changes; and 
secondly, it is able to separately estimate the preference 
of individuals for different environmental attributes and 
marginal values. The flexibility of this methodology allows 

 

 
assessing a wide variety of potential damages to a 
diverse set of environmental attributes.  

Some applications of CEs have been reported for the 
economic valuation of coastal and marine resources 
(Johnston et al., 2002; Lew and Larson, 2005; Rein, 
1999; Samonte-Tan et al., 2007), although, to our 
knowledge, the use of CE in this context is non existent. 



Hoyos  et al.               070 
 
 
 
Table 7. Contingent valuation studies of rural landscape changes, with WTP expressed in euros 2006 per person and year. 
 
 Study Landscape change Population Individual WTP 
 Santos (1998) Conserving the Pennine Dales (ESA, England) landscape’s attributes Visitors 78,84 - 96,17 
 Willis and Garrod (1991)   Conserving the Yorkshire Dales (UK) today’s landscape Visitors 59,89 - 89,43 
 Santos (1997) Conserving today’s agricultural landscapes in the Peneda-Geres (NP, Portugal) Visitors 64,83 - 75,72 
 Santos (2007) Multiple study average  42,40 - 64,56 
 Santos (2007) Meta-analytical model predictions based on similar studies Visitors 48,16 - 97,96 
 
Source: Santos (2007). 
 

 
The WTP results seem to be in line with those from 
similar studies. Table 7 contains a summary of the mean 
estimates of different studies and the results from a meta-
model built upon contingent valuation studies of 
environmentally sensitive areas by Santos (2007). In the 
reported studies, the WTP ranges from 42 to 98 € per 
visitor and year. These estimates are slightly higher than 
the WTP for protecting the mount Jaizkibel today’s 
landscape (between 27.80 and 83.40 € per person and 
year depending on the percentage degradation 
considered). This difference may be explained, among 
other things, because the population surveyed in these 
studies were visitors (normally stating higher WTP than 
non-visitors) while in Jaizkibel the general population was 
surveyed. 
 
 
Conclusions 
 
Coastal managers and policy-makers often need to 
evaluate policies affecting the welfare of the population. If 
relevant environmental costs are not incorporated in 
coastal developmental project assessments, welfare 
measures will be probably biased. CE methodology is a 
valuation method that can be used to value impacts 
related to coastal development projects. This paper has 
used this methodology to perform an economic 
assessment of potential non-market environmental 
damages to Jaizkibel natural site (Spain) associated to 
the construction of a new seaport in Pasaia. The 
valuation exercise was based on a questionnaire survey 
administered in the Basque Country (Spain and France) 
to a representative sample of the population.  

On average a Basque citizen would be willing to pay 
annually 1.39 euros for avoiding 1% deterioration of 
mount Jaizkibel today’s landscape; 0.87 euros for 
avoiding 1% deterioration of today’s flora; 0.68 euros for 
avoiding 1% deterioration of today’s avifauna; and 0.63 
euros for avoiding 1% deterioration of today’s seabed.  
According to this estimates, the economic value of the 
future environmental damage provoked by a new seaport 
in Pasaia was estimated between 172 and 535 million 
euros per annum. This value depends on the future 
environmental damage that the construction of a new 

 

 
seaport may cause. In case of constructing Seaport 1 
(Figure 1), the environmental damage was estimated in 
535 million euros per annum. In case of constructing 
Seaport 2, the environmental damage was estimated in 
344 million euros per annum. And last, if Seaport 3 was 
constructed, the environmental damage was estimated in 
172 million euros per annum. 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the 
Department of Environment of the Basque Government 
and IHOBE, S.A., from the Department of Education of 
the Basque Government through grant IT-334-07 
(UPV/EHU Econometrics Research Group), and from 
CICYT Project No. SEJ2004-00143/ECON and CEDEX 
project from the Spanish Government. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski E, Primavera 

J, Granek EF, Polasky S, Aswani S, Cramer LA, Stoms DM, Kennedy 
CJ, Bael D, Kappel CV, Perillo GME, Reed DJ(2008). Coastal 
Ecosystem-Based Management with Nonlinear Ecological Functions 
and Values. Science, 319: 321-323.  

Christie P, White AT(1997). Trends in development of coastal area 
management in tropical countries: from central to community 
orientation. Coastal Manage., 25: 155-181.  

Chua TE (1993). Essential elements of integrated coastal zone 
management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 21:81-108.  

Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New 
developments with implications for research and practice. J. Mark., 
54: 3-17.  

Greene WH (2007). LIMDEP Version 9.0 User's Manual, Econometric 
Software, Inc., New York.  

Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998). Using choice experiments 
to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ., 11: 413-428.  

Hausman J, McFadden D(1984). Specification tests for the multinomial 
logit model. Econometrica, 52: 1219-1240.  

Hensher DA (2007). Attribute processing in choice experiments and 
implications on willingness to pay. In: BJ Kanninen (Editor), Valuing 
environmental amenities using stated choice studies. A common 
sense approach to theory and practice. Springer, The Netherlands, 
pp. 135-158.  

Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005). Applied choice analysis. A 
primer, Cambridge University Press, New York.  

Hoyos D (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with 
discrete choice experiments, Ecol. Econ., 69(2): 2372-2381. 

  



071       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
Johnston RJ, Grigalunas TA, Opaluch JJ, Mazzotta M, Diamantedes J 

(2002). Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and 
ecological models: the peconic estuary system study. Coastal 
Manage., 30:47-65.  

Krinsky I, Robb A (1986). On approximating the statistical properties of 
elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68:715-719.  

Lew DK, Larson DM (2005). Valuing recreation and amenities at San 
Diego County Beaches. Coastal Manage., 33: 71-86.  

Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000). Stated choice methods: 
analysis and applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  

McFadden D (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice 
behaviour. In: P Zarembka (Editor), Frontiers in Econometrics. 
Academic Press, New York.  

Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: 
The Contingent Valuation Method, RFF Press, Washington, D.C.  

OSE (2007). Sostenibilidad en España 2007. Observatorio de la 
Sostenibilidad en España. 

 
 
 

 
Pozueta J (2004). Estudio comparado de las alternativas de 
desarrollo del Puerto de Pasajes en relación con su grado de 
impacto medio-ambiental y sostenibilidad. Departamento para el 
Desarrollo Sostenible. Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa.  

Rein FA (1999). An economic analysis of vegetative buffer strip 
implementation case study: Elkhorn Slough, Monterey Bay, 
California. Coastal Manage., 27: 377-390.  

Samonte-Tan GP, White AT, Tercero MA, Diviva J, Tabara E, Caballes 
C (2007). Economic valuation of coastal and marine resources: Bohol 
Marine Triangle, Philippines. Coastal Manage., 35: 319-338.  

Santos JML (2007). Transferring landscape values: how and how 
accurately? In: S Navrud and R Ready (Editors), Environmental value 
transfer: Issues and methods. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 45-76. 
 


