Using Contingent Choice Surveys to Inform National Park Management
AbstractContingent choice surveys, in which respondents rate or rank alternative scenarios describing potential futures composed of varying levels of several different attributes, can help national park managers by identifying the preferences of visitors and also the nonuse values generated by park attributes. Many alternative combinations of park attributes can be explored efficiently, helping park managers to identify promising alternatives to be explored further during park planning processes. The surveys can be integrated easily into multiple stages of the existing National Park Service planning process. Another benefit of using contingent choice surveys in park planning is that it will foster interdisciplinarity. This paper describes National Park Service management policies and how contingent choice techniques can be integrated into them. A description of the different steps of a contingent choice analysis follows. Examples from Acadia National Park and North Cascades National Park illustrate the technique. The paper ends with a discussion of issues that future research should address.national park, management, contingent choice, choice experiments, nonuse values
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, Colgate University in its series Working Papers with number 2012-02.
Date of creation: Sep 2012
Date of revision:
national park; management; contingent choice; choice experiments; nonuse values;
Other versions of this item:
- Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
- C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
- H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
- 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-ALL-2012-10-20 (All new papers)
- NEP-DCM-2012-10-20 (Discrete Choice Models)
- NEP-TUR-2012-10-20 (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.:
- Bryon P. Allen & John B. Loomis, 2008. "The Decision To Use Benefit Transfer Or Conduct Original Valuation Research For Benefit-Cost And Policy Analysis," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(1), pages 1-12, 01.
- Robert W. Turner & Laura Noddin & Alita Giuda, 2005. "Estimating nonuse values using conjoint analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15.
- Robert W. Turner, 2002. "Market Failures and the Rationale for National Parks," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 347-356, January.
- Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.
- Robert J. Johnston & Randall S. Rosenberger, 2010. "Methods, Trends And Controversies In Contemporary Benefit Transfer," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 479-510, 07.
- Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15.
- Bart Vermeulen & Peter Goos & Riccardo Scarpa & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "Bayesian Conjoint Choice Designs for Measuring Willingness to Pay," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 129-149, January.
- Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
- David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
- repec:ebl:ecbull:v:17:y:2005:i:7:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
- Robert W. Turner, 2000. "Managing Multiple Activities in a National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(3), pages 473-485.
- Kevin J. Boyle & Nicolai V. Kuminoff & Christopher F. Parmeter & Jaren C. Pope, 2010. "The Benefit-Transfer Challenges," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 161-182, October.
- repec:cgt:wpaper:2014-01 is not listed on IDEAS
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chad Sparber).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.