Estimation of median willingness to pay for a system of recreation areas



This study provides information about people’s valuation of recreational user days on public lands. The contingent valuation method is used with a random paired dichotomous choice question format. A bivariate probit model is utilized to estimate parameters of a willingness to pay function, which is used to calculate welfare measures associated with trips to three different sites and eight diverse recreational activities.

The results indicate that recreational values vary by site and by activity. Per day user values range from $ 12.15 CAN per day for trips for general rest and relaxation at a lake area popular for weekend visits to $ 35.65 CAN per day for white water canoeing on a wilderness river. Values on a per trip basis range from $ 258.11 CAN for hunting to $ 97.87 CAN for weekend lake canoeing.

Key Words

Contingent valuation willingness to pay recreation dichotomous choice bivariate probit non-market valuation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bateman, I.J. and Willis, K.G. (1999):Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bowler, J.M.; English, D.B.K. and Cordell, H.K. (1999): Outdoor Recreation Participation and Consumption: Projections 2000 to 2050. In Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J. and Bowker, J.M. (eds.)Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Champagne (IL): Segamore Press Inc., pp. 323–350.Google Scholar
  3. Bergstrom, J.C. and De Civita, P. (1999): Status of Benefits Transfer in the United States and Canada: A Review.Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 47, no 1 (March), pp. 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer, R. and Spaninks, F.A. (1999): The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing.Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 14, no 1 (July), pp. 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron, T.A. and Quiggin, J. (1994): Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a ‘Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up’ Questionnaire.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 27, pp. 218–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Champ, P.A.; Boyle, K. and Brown, T.C. eds. (2003):A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Dumitras, D.E. (2004):Estimation of Welfare Measure Differences for a System of Recreation Areas. Master Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  8. Economist, The (1997): Fun for the Masses.The Economist, vol. 344, issue 8028 (08/02/97), page 62.Google Scholar
  9. Foot, D.K. (1989/90): The Age of Outdoor Recreation in Canada.Journal of Applied Recreation Research, vol. 15, no 3, pp. 159–178.Google Scholar
  10. Foot, D.K. (2004): Leisure Futures: A Change in Demography? In Weiermair, K. and Mathies, C. (eds.)The Tourism and Leisure Industry: Shaping the Future. Binghamton (NY): The Haworth Hospitality Press, pp. 21–33.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, A.M. III (1993):The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  12. Greene, W. H. (2003):Econometric Analysis. 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Hanemann, W.M. (1984): Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 66, no 2, pp. 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanemann, W.M.; Loomis, J.B. and Kanninen, B.J. (1991): Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 73, pp. 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanninen, B.J. (1993): Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.Land Economics, vol. 69, no 2, pp. 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loomis, J.B. (1993):Integrated Public Lands Management: Principles and Applications to National Forests, Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and BLM Lands. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Maddala, G.S. (1983):Limited Independent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (1993):Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington D.C.: Resource for the Future.Google Scholar
  19. Nickerson, N.P. (2000): Travel and Recreation Outlook 2000: Focusing on Demographics.Montana Business Quarterly, Spring.Google Scholar
  20. Rollins, K. (1997): Wilderness Canoeing in Ontario: Using Cumulative Results to Update Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Offer Amounts.Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 45, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smailes, P.J. and Smith, D.L. (2001): The Growing Recreational Use of State Forest Lands in the Adelaide Hills.Land Use Policy, vol. 18, pp. 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Resource EconomicsUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations