Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia

By John Rolfe, Jill Windle. 2012

110 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The aim of this study was to estimate the values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) at the national level and to examine the effects of distance decay on valuation estimates. Two choice-modelling experiments were conducted in six locations: a regional town within the GBR catchment area (Townsville); Brisbane, the state capital approximately 450 km from the southern limit of the GBR; and four other capital cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth) ranging from nearly 1,000 km to over 4,000 km from Brisbane. Value estimates from a pooled model suggest that the average WTP across Australian households is $21.68 per household per annum for 5 years, and that those values are higher for respondents with higher levels of education and income, respondents who live in Queensland, respondents who live further away, and respondents who plan to visit more often in the future. For this nationally important iconic asset, apparent distance decay effects appear to be explained by variations in future usage and state responsibility, rather than proximity.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, Transportation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/53f542978e40720d767c2c4e908056714f193842

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Transportation

Citations in the corpus

Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay (2014, background): “, 2009), those that 381 focused on the effects of distance from the source of externality on WTP represent a 382 growing area of research in the SP literature (Garrod et al., 2002; Schaafsma, 2010; 383 Johnston et al., 2011; Rolfe and Windle, 2012).”
Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies (2017, background): “…Day, et al. (2006), Campbell, Scarpa, and Hutchinson (2008, Campbell, Hutchinson, and Scarpa 2009), Brouwer, Martin-Ortega, and Berbel (2010), Rolfe and Windle (2012), Schaafsma et al. (2012), Jørgensen et al. (2013), Johnston and Ramachandran (2014), and Johnston et al. (2015), among…”