A comparison of contingent valuation method and random utility model estimates of the value of avoiding reductions in king mackerel bag limits
AbstractThis paper estimates the value of king mackerel bag limit changes with both stated and revealed preference methods. The 1997 Marine Recreational Fishery Statistical Survey allows estimation of the value of avoiding bag limit reductions with the random utility model and the contingent valuation method. Using the contingent valuation method, the willingness to pay to avoid a one fish reduction in the bag limit is $2.45 per year. Using the random utility model, the willingness to pay to avoid a one fish reduction in the bag limit is $2.24 per trip and $7.71 for a two-month time period. Considering several methodological issues, the difference in willingness to pay between the stated and revealed preference methods is in the expected direction.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.
Volume (Year): 38 (2006)
Issue (Month): 15 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- James Thornton, 2000. "Physician choice of medical specialty: do economic incentives matter?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(11), pages 1419-1428.
- Carson, Richard & Hanemann, Michael & Steinberg, Dan, 1990. "A discrete choice contingent valuation estimate of the value of Kenai King salmon," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 53-68.
- Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.
- Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
- Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
- Smith, V. Kerry & Liu, Jin Long & Palmquist, Raymond B., 1993. "Marine pollution and sport fishing quality : Using Poisson models as household production functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 111-116.
- John C. Whitehead & Christopher F. Dumas & Craig E. Landry & Jim Herstine, 2011. "Valuing Bag Limits in the North Carolina Charter Boat Fishery with Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Working Papers 11-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Michael Kremer & Jessica Leino & Edward Miguel & Alix Peterson Zwane, 2011.
"Spring Cleaning: Rural Water Impacts, Valuation, and Property Rights Institutions,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 126(1), pages 145-205.
- Michael Kremer & Jessica Leino & Edward Miguel & Alix Peterson Zwane, 2009. "Spring Cleaning: Rural Water Impacts, Valuation and Property Rights Institutions," NBER Working Papers 15280, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.