nep-tur New Economics Papers
on Tourism Economics
Issue of 2008‒02‒09
two papers chosen by
Antonello Scorcu
University of Bologna

  1. Collective intellectual property rights for the development of creative tourist districts: an exploration By Russo Antonio P.; Segre Giovanna
  2. The costs and benefits of providing open space in cities By Jan Rouwendal; Willemijn van der Straaten

  1. By: Russo Antonio P.; Segre Giovanna
    Abstract: In this paper the institution of Collective Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) is proposed as a regulatory tool for the development of Creative Tourist Districts based on local knowledge and trust, described as a superior organisational model of destinations to alternative models founded on individual property. As there are various types and contexts of applications of CIPR, as well as different development objectives to be achieved, the paper designs a strategy to maximise the expected impacts from case to case. It then proposes “area labels”, based on a combination of controls on quality and delimitation of areas of validity of the right, as the best instrument to foster a strategic orientation to quality across the local tourism industry.
    Date: 2008–01
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:uto:eblawp:200712&r=tur
  2. By: Jan Rouwendal; Willemijn van der Straaten
    Abstract: Although many researchers have investigated the value of open space in cities, few of them have compared them to the costs of providing this amenity. In this paper, we use the monocentric model of a city to derive a simple cost-benefit rule for the optimal provision of open space. The rule is essentially the Samuelson-condition for the optimal provision of a public good, with the price of land as the appropriate indicator for its cost. The condition is made operational by computing the willingness to pay for public and private space on the basis of empirical hedonic price functions for three Dutch cities. The conclusions with respect to the optimal provision of open space differ between the three cities.<BR> Further investigation reveals that willingness to pay for parks and public gardens increases with income, although not as fast as that for private residential space.
    Keywords: spatial planning; provision of public goods; cost-benefit analysis
    JEL: R52 H41 D61
    Date: 2008–01
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cpb:discus:98&r=tur

This nep-tur issue is ©2008 by Antonello Scorcu. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at http://nep.repec.org. For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <director@nep.repec.org>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.