Following up on John's post from earlier on the potential value of beach renourishment projects (and the bad use of benefit cost analysis by policymakers), I sent the following message to one of our outstanding young faculty members (in my opinion of course), Dukie (we don't hold that against her), and bright mind thinking about coastal issues and the interplay between ecological and economic systems, Dr. Sathya Gopalakrishnan

Sathya…Do you have any idea
(rough guess will do) of the welfare gains per dollar spent on renourishment?

Sathya's response:

I
haven't seen any estimates of return on nourishment investment. 

My
back of the envelope calculation based on just the hedonic valuation in NC
would be $3 per dollar spent. 

For
an average ocean front property valued at approx $800000, the semi log hedonic
coeff (accounting for endogeneity of width) of 0.11 suggests a value of $8800
per foot of beach width. With the cost of nourishment sand is approx $5 per
cubic meter and fixed cost of $1000000. The cost per foot of nourishment per
ocean front home would be approx 2300 (assuming costs are distributed across 50
homes along a 1km stretch of the coastline, and a limiting nourishment depth of
10m). That would be $6500 net gain, which is approx a $3 for every dollar
spent. 

And in good self-promotional fashion:

We
used a similar calculation of net benefits in [our] JEEM paper simulations

Well played Sathya.  I'm sure you recognized the influence our blog will have on your readership.

Posted in , , ,
  1. Mal Avatar

    I tried to read and understand Sathya Gopalakrishnan’s abstract and I can’t. I need an interpreter. I’m pretty sure it’s English. Maybe someone could get a “grant” to find out just what percent of the US adult population accurately understands her language? Maybe I’m just dumb. I do have a B.S. degree from a highly regarded university but that was a long time ago.

  2. Tim Haab Avatar

    Mal,
    Do you speak English or American (for the record an English colleague tells me I speak American)?
    The abstract I linked to is written for an audience of academic (PhD?) environmental economists. It is full of jargon that we academics use to make our stuff sound way more complicated than it is–and to create a barrier to entry into the profession which drives our wages up.
    Allow me to interpret the abstract in blog language:
    ‘Using a bunch of complicated statistics and math that no one else has thought to use, we find that beach house prices fall when beaches wash away or when the cost of putting more sand on the beaches go up.’

  3. Mal Avatar

    Tim, Thanks for the unexpectedly honest(I think) response. The “..and to create a barrier to entry into the profession which drives our wages up” confirms my long felt suspicion.
    If I were in your shoes I might do the same thing. Ms.Gopalakrishnan is wonderful at it. I hope that when these issues are framed for our political purse string holders that they are more like your interpretation. I mean most of them wouldn’t be able get out their old statistic’s textbook and bone up on OLS’s. I’m going to also try to use the word “parameterize” more often in my day to conversations around the house.
    Thanks again
    Lynn

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading