1. Social decision making 1) Ski resort development / conservation
{"Image DocumentName": "1. Social decision making 1) Ski resort development / conservation", "Image ImageDescription": "Economists\u2019 studies: Cicchetti, Fisher, and Smith (1976) Number of Visitors. Travel cost. Number of visitors. Travel cost. Benefits of Mineral King ski resort development. Impact on the other ski resort \u2014 in case of decrease in the number of visitors. (-) (+) The above thinking was applied to Mineral King Valley. By developing a ski resort, a recreation demand would be created for the Mineral King Valley ski resort (click). And, for the same aggregation of travel costs, the area in the graph showing net benefit is derived. Next, by calculating the total net benefit for all the visitors, we can obtain the net benefit for the whole of society that will be generated by the development of the ski resort. However, in the science of economics, there is always concern about the ripple effects. In the case of the study we are looking at here, (click) the ripple effect caused by the development of the new ski resort will concern the fluctuation in the number of visitors to a nearby existing ski resort. That number may go up or down. (Click) Here, in this slide, the graphs show that the number of visitors to the other ski resort have dropped because visitors have been lured to the Mineral King ski resort. This means that the other nearby ski resort has lost some of its social value because the number of visitors has dropped. The study was used to estimate the shifts in the recreation demand curves of the Mineral King ski resort and the other nearby ski resort. The study then looked at the net benefits that would be derived from the development of a new ski resort \u2013 in other words, the study estimated the recreation value that would be generated by the development of the Mineral King ski resort. The results of these estimations showed (click): that even if actual development cost was conservatively quoted, it would be 61 million US dollars, whereas, even if the development value was generously quoted, it would only amount to 27 million US dollars, which would mean that the development was unlikely to be desirable for the society. Results: The cost was estimated to be at least US 61,000,000 and the benefit of the development was at most US 27,000,000. The development was unlikely to be desirable for the society.", "Image XResolution": "37", "Image YResolution": "37", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Centimeter", "Image Software": "SlidePlayer", "Image YCbCrPositioning": "Centered"}