Perceived impacts

Jenny Rutter (jmr196@soton.ac.uk)
Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:35:57 GMT


I agree with you Rachel (shock!). Choosing which areas to protect and which to be claimed by the sea is a very hard decision to make. In areas that are developed it is relatively easy for an economist to carry out a cost benefit analysis of such a protection scheme. This is done through using house prices and also looking inside properties, and calculating how much the belongings within the house are worth, as well as looking at infrastructure etc. Yet, it is far harder to put a price on intangible goods. Such items could include areas of sentimental, historical, or environmental value.

There is also the point John has mentioned on whether you can say that an environmentally designated area is worth more than a non-designated area? There are methods such as contingent valuation, and Clawson's method which deal with how much people perceive areas are worth e.g. by asking how much they would pay to use a beach. There are obviously major limitations with this, and many people believe that putting prices on such items is completely ridiculous anyway.

Also, it should be noted that even though some sustainable methods may not work that well, hard defences have a relatively short life-span with a much larger cost. They also harm coastal environments by starving coastal sediments down shore. In my opinion, Local Planning Authorities will often use such hard defences to solve the perceived problem rather than the problem at hand. As long as the people perceive the problem is being dealt with, through observing a large sea wall being constructed for instance, then security will have been established through the local community. This is well understood and used notion used by LPAs to maintain their positions in Council. (Michael Clark, 1998).


Mail a follow-up to this archive to es-g5t3@geodata.soton.ac.uk