Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:52:00.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Expectations and Heterogeneous Preferences for Congestion in the Valuation of Recreation Benefits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Jeffrey A. Michael  and
Stephen D. Reiling
Jeffrey A. Michael
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, North Carolina State University
Stephen D. Reiling
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics and Policy, University of Maine, Orono
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies of recreation congestion generally utilize nonmarket valuation techniques to determine the use level and entrance price that maximize aggregate recreation benefits for a specific recreation area. This paper improves upon these previous studies by relaxing the assumption of homogeneous preferences among visitors of the same recreation area and accounting for visitor expectations of congestion. The results indicate that failing to account for heterogeneous preferences for congestion by time of visit leads to overestimates of the benefits of relieving peak-time congestion, while accounting for expectations raises questions about the validity of the standard optimal use model.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , October 1997 , pp. 166 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berrens, R., Bergland, O., and Adams, R.M. 1993. “Valuation Issues in an Urban Recreational Fishery: Spring Chinook Salmon in Portland, Oregon.” Journal of Leisure Research 25: 70–83.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A. 1988. “A New Paradigm for Valuing NonMarket Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 355–79.Google Scholar
Cichetti, C.J., and Smith, V.K. 1973. “Congestion, Quality Deterioration, and Optimal Use: Wilderness Recreation in the Spanish Peaks Primitive Area.” Social Science Research 2: 15–30.Google Scholar
Cichetti, C.J., and Smith, V.K. 1976. The Costs of Congestion: An Econometric Analysis of Wilderness Recreation. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing.Google Scholar
Fisher, Anthony J., and Krutilla, John V. 1972. “Determination of Optimal Capacity of Resource-Based Recreation Facilities.” Natural Resources Journal 12: 417–44.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M., and Havemann, R.H. 1977. “Congestion, Quality Deterioration, and Heterogeneous Tastes.” Journal of Public Economics 8: 225–32.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. 1984. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 332–41.Google Scholar
Jakus, P., and Shaw, W.D. 1997. “Congestion at Recreation Areas: Empirical Evidence on Perceptions, Mitigating Behavior and Management Preferences.” Journal of Environmental Management. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
McConnell, K., and Sutinen, J.G. 1984. “An Analysis of Congested Recreation Facilities.” In Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, ed. Smith, V.K., vol. 3; pp. 9–36. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.Google Scholar
McConnell, K.E. 1977. “Congestion and Willingness to Pay: A Study of Beach Use.” Land Economics 53: 185–95.Google Scholar
McConnell, K.E. 1988. “Heterogeneous Preferences for Congestion.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 251–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menz, F.C., and Mullen, J.K. 1981. “Expected Encounters and Willingness to Pay for Outdoor Recreation.” Land Economics 57: 33–40.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Prince, R., and Ahmed, E. 1988. “Estimating Individual Recreation Benefits under Congestion and Uncertainty.” Journal of Leisure Research 20: 61–76.Google Scholar
Reiling, S.D., Michael, J.A., and McLean, K. 1994. “A Profile of Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness Users, Their Perceptions and Attitudes.” Staff paper, Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, REP 457.Google Scholar
Shelby, B. 1980. “Crowding Models for Backcountry Recreation.” Land Economics 56: 43–55.Google Scholar
Smith, V.K. 1981. “Congestion, Travel Cost Recreational Demand Models, and Benefit Evaluation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8: 92–96.Google Scholar
Walsh, R.G., and Gilliam, L.O. 1982. “Benefits of Wilderness Expansion with Excess Demand for Indian Peaks.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 12: 1–12.Google Scholar
Walsh, R.G., Miller, N.P., and Gilliam, L.O. 1983. “Congestion and Willingness to Pay for Expansion of Skiing Capacity.” Land Economics 59: 195–210.Google Scholar