Table 4. Estimates of Use Value from Recreation Participation3
|
Use Value____________ |
CurrentYear, 1990 _________________1____________________ |
_______________Forecast Year, 2000________________________ | ||
|
__________2b |
_____________3c___________ |
4d__________ | ||
|
Mean |
$5.16 |
$5.93 |
$6.40 |
$7.49 |
|
Median |
1.88 |
1.78 |
2.09 |
2.59 |
|
Minimum |
0.12 |
0.15 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
|
Maximum |
25.64 |
32.32 |
34.75 |
43.36 |
|
Standard Deviation |
__________2.82 |
__________3.39 |
_____________3.66 |
__________4.40 |
|
Sample Size |
27 |
27 |
31 |
30 |
|
Use Value per Season |
$23.89 |
$27.44 |
$29.93 |
$35.96 |
|
Forecast Participants |
14,700 |
15,201 |
17,372 |
16,938 |
|
Aggregate Use Value |
$351,183_________ |
$417,115 |
$519,944__________ |
$609,090_________ |
aAll Use Value estimates are in 1990 dollars.
bAverage age increases by 2.5 years.
0Average wage increases by $5.83.
dAverage age increases by 2.5 years and average wage increases by $5.83.
CONCLUSIONS
This study introduces the one-step recreation par-
ticipation method as an alternative to the two-step
participation/intensity method for valuing natural
resource-based recreation sites. Advantages of the
one-step method are that it is relatively easy to
conceptualize and implement and requires only dis-
crete choice participation and travel distance data.
The one-step method is a useful, low-cost substitute
for two-step travel cost models when research budg-
ets are limited.
The use value estimates in this exploratory study
were of a plausible magnitude. More experience
with this model is needed, however, before it can be
viewed as an alternative to the two-step method for
policy purposes. For instance, this case study shows
that use values may have been underestimated for
recreation sites with relatively low participation
rates because the logistic regression model underes-
timated the number of expected recreation partici-
pants. Apphcation of the one-step method to natural
areas that supply more and higher quality recrea-
tional resources, such as lakes or wilderness areas, is
needed. A limitation of further application is a lack
of necessary data. National data available from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Survey of
Fish and Wildlife Associated Recreation, various
years), which have been used extensively to estimate
recreation participation equations, contain no infor-
mation or useful proxies of trip costs faced by non-
participants. If found to be an attractive approach,
widespread implementation of the one-step method
must wait on data availabihty.
Further experience with the one-step method could
improve upon the reliability and validity of the use
value estimates from participation models. In par-
ticular, inclusion of substitute site prices and quality
variables would more properly specify the model
and increase reliability of estimates. Attention to the
issues of functional form and multi-destination trips
is also warranted. Survey designs which include
data appropriate for implementation of the travel
cost model would allow a validity test. Convergent
validity tests using correlations of use value from the
participation decision with consumer’s surplus esti-
mates from the second-step intensity of use decision
would increase confidence in the validity of use
value from the participation decision.
REFERENCES
Amemiya, Takeshi. “Qualitative Response Models: A Survey.” J. Econ. Lit., (1981):1483-1536.
Blomquist, Glenn C., and John C. Whitehead. The Effect of Alternative and Reclaimed Areas on the Value of
Wetlands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Technical Report 597,1991.
Bockstael, Nancy E., Ivar E. Strand, Jr., Kenneth E. McConnell, and Firuzeh Arsanjani. “Sample Selection
Bias in the Estimation OfRecreation Demand Fimctions: An Adaptation to Sportfishing.” Land Econom-
ics, 66 (1990):40-49.
118