Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:33:04.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On Estimating Household Demand for Outdoor Recreation from Property Values: An Exploration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Steven F. Edwards*
Affiliation:
Northeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA 02543
Get access

Abstract

This paper explores how hedonic price analysis might be used to estimate the surplus benefits of local outdoor recreation when distance to the recreational site is captured in property values. The model is characterized by the endogenous choice of distance to a local recreational area by households in coastal property markets and by the capitalization of proximity in property values. Equilibrium occurs when the reduction in the cost of a property due to a marginal increase in distance to the recreational area equals the associated loss in recreational surplus resulting from increased travel costs. The theoretical model is applied in an exploratory analysis of the “demand” for distance to the nearest public beach from which total surplus benefits are estimated.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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.)

Footnotes

This work began at the Marine Policy Center. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Robert Solow's advise significantly improved the quality of the theoretical section. Comments by Philip Logan, James Opaluch, James Dunn, and two anonymous reviewers improved the quality of the paper. Early financial support was provided by the J. N. Pew. Jr. Charitable Trust through the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Marine Policy Center. The contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the National Marine Fisheries Service and should not assume endorsement by the Federal government.

References

Bartik, T. J.The Estimation of Demand Parameters in Hedonic Price Models.” Journal of Political Economy 95 (1988):8188.Google Scholar
Bell, F. W.Economic Policy Issues Associated with Beach Nourishment.” Policy Studies Review 6 (1986):374381.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N. E., Strand, I. E., and Hanemann, W. M.Time and the Recreational Demand Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69 (1987):293302.Google Scholar
Brown, G.Estimating Non-market Economic Losses from Oil Spills: Amoco Cadiz, Steuart Transportation, Zoe Colocotroni.” In The Cost of Oil Spills, Paris: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, pp. 191204, 1982.Google Scholar
Brown, G. and Pollakowski, H. O.Economic Valuation of Shoreline.” Review of Economics and Statistics 59 (1977):272278.Google Scholar
Burt, O. R. and Brewer, D.Estimation of Net Social Benefits from Outdoor Recreation.” Econometrica 39 (1971):813827.Google Scholar
Diamond, D. B. Jr. and Smith, B. A.Simultaneity in the Market for Housing Characteristics.” Journal of Urban Economics 17 (1985):280292.Google Scholar
Dwyer, J. F., Kelly, J. R., and Bowes, M. D. Improved Procedures for Valuation of the Contribution of Recreation to National Economic Development. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois 1977.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. F. and Anderson, G. D.Land Use Conflicts in the Coastal Zone: An Approach for the Analysis of the Opportunity Costs of Protecting Coastal Resources.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 13 (1984):7381.Google Scholar
Epple, D.Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Estimating Demand and Supply Functions for Differentiated Products.” Journal of Political Economy 95 (1987):5980.Google Scholar
Graves, P., Murdoch, J. C., Thayer, M. A., and Waldman, D. The Robustness of Hedonic Price Estimation: Urban Air Quality. Land Economics 64 (1988):220233.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. and Rubinfeld, D. L.Housing Prices and Willingness to Pay for Clean Air.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 5 (1978):81102.Google Scholar
McConnell, K. E.Congestion and Willingness to Pay: A Study of Beach Use.” Land Economics 53 (1977):185195.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, R.Estimating the Structural Equations of Implicit Markets and Household Production Functions.” Review of Economics and Statistics 66 (1984):673677.Google Scholar
Milon, J. W., Gressel, J., and Mulkjey, D.Hedonic Amenity Valuation and Functional Form Specification.” Land Economics 60 (1984):378387.Google Scholar
Muth, R. F. Cities and Housing: The Spatial Pattern of Urban Residential Land Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1959.Google Scholar
Ohsfeldt, R. L. and Smith, B. A.Estimating the Demand for Heterogenous Goods.” Review of Economics and Statistics 67 (1985):165171.Google Scholar
Ohsfeldt, R. L. and Smith, B. A.Assessing the Accuracy of Structural Parameter Estimates in Analyses of Implicit Markets.” Land Economics 64 (1988):135146.Google Scholar
Rosen, S.Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition.” Journal of Political Economy 82 (1974):3455.Google Scholar
Silberman, J. and Klock, M.The Recreation Benefits of Beach Recreation. Ocean and Shoreline Management 11 (1988):7390.Google Scholar
Sutherland, R. J. and Walsh, R. G.Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality.” Land Economics 61 (1985):281291.Google Scholar
Tiebout, C. M.A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64 (1956):416424.Google Scholar
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sea Gull Beach, Yarmouth, Massachusetts. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessments, Small Beach Erosion Control Project, New England Division. 1986a.Google Scholar
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Recreation Development: Policy.” Circular N. 1165-2-140, September 5, Washington, D.C. 1986b.Google Scholar
Wilman, E. A.Hedonic Prices and Beach Recreational Values.” In Advances in Applied Microeconomics, ed. Smith, V. Kerry, Vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., pp. 77104. 1981.Google Scholar