Contingent Valuation and Random Utility Model Estimates of the Recreational Value of King Mackerel
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 for a two-month time period is $10.83. 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 InfoPaper provided by Department of Economics, Appalachian State University in its series Working Papers with number 05-08.
Date of creation: 2005
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Thelma C. Raley Hall, Boone, North Carolina 28608
Web page: http://www.business.appstate.edu/departments/economics/
More information through EDIRC
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGR-2005-06-14 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2005-06-14 (All new papers)
- NEP-CUL-2005-06-14 (Cultural Economics)
- NEP-ENV-2005-06-14 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-TUR-2005-06-14 (Tourism Economics)
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.:
- 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.
- George R. Parsons & Michael S. Needelman, 1992. "Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(4), pages 418-433.
- 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.
- 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.
- Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007.
"Incentive and informational properties of preference questions,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
- Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Carson, Richard T. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Martin, Kerry M. & Wright, Jennifer L., 1995.
"Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods,"
1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia
148793, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (O. Ashton Morgan).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.