This study presents an application of the contingent valuation method for valuing medal winning success on a transnational basis to test whether more medals won equates to more utility. To achieve this aim, a research project was set up in five countries: Belgium, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Respondents were asked to state their willingness to pay to avoid a large-scale reduction in government funding for elite sport, resulting in a 50% reduction in medals won at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. Results show that willingness to pay for avoiding reduced medal winning performance differs significantly between countries with the more successful countries reporting higher willingness to pay values than the relatively less successful countries. This finding indicates that more medals won appears to be linked with more utility. The validity tests on the regression models were generally consistent with the theoretical expectations. Implications are discussed in terms of how governments can promote elite sport development while being conscious of the public's acceptability of such investment.
Biodiversity, including entire habitats and ecosystems, is recognized to be of great social and economic value. Conserving biodiversity has therefore become a task of international NGO’s as well as grass-roots organisations. The ‘classical’ model of conservation has been characterised by creation of designated nature areas to allow biodiversity to recover from the effects of human activities. Typically, such areas prohibit entry other than through commercial ecotourism or necessary monitoring activities, but also often involve commodification nature. This classical conservation model has been criticized for limiting valuation of nature to its commercial worth and for being insensitive to local communities. Simultaneously, ‘new conservation’ approaches have emerged. Propagating openness of conservation approaches, ‘new conservation’ has counteracted the calls for strict measures of biodiversity protection as the only means of protecting biodiversity. In turn, the ’new conservation’ was criticised for being inadequate in protecting those species that are not instrumental for human welfare. The aim of this article is to inquire whether sustainable future for non-humans can be achieved based on commodification of nature and/or upon open approaches to conservation. It is argued that while economic development does not necessarily lead to greater environmental protection, strict regulation combined with economic interests can be effective. Thus, economic approaches by mainstream conservation institutions cannot be easily dismissed. However, ‘new conservation’ can also be useful in opening up alternatives, such as care-based and spiritual approaches to valuation of nature. Complementary to market-based approaches to conservation, alternative ontologies of the human development as empathic beings embedded in intimate ethical relations with non-humans are proposed. https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
To what extent does receiving information about either popular attractions or less-visited at-tractions, presented as “highlights” of the city, influence the movement of tourists to popular or less-visited attractions, and how does this differ by information channel through which the information is presented? To what extent does receiving information about either popular attractions or less-visited at-tractions, presented as “highlights” of the city, influence tourists’ experience, including their evaluations of the destination, their visit as a whole, and the specific information channel they received, and how does this differ by information channel through which the information is presented? What implementation models and financing mechanisms are available for DMO’s to spread tourists using the information channels tested, contingent on their effectiveness as measured by the previous experiment?Societal issueDestination Management Organisations (DMOs) are looking for interventions that effectively discourage tourists from visiting crowded hotspots and entice them to visit less crowded locations. Interventions like changing infrastructure, charging entrance fees and re-serving site access are either too expensive, too invasive or politically controversial. It is much easier to intervene on tourists' behaviour by informing them about alternatives.Collaborative partnersNHL Stenden, Travel with Zoey, Amsterdam and Partners, Wonderful Copenhagen, Mobidot.
