IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rae/jouces/v48y1998p37-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide

Author

Listed:
  • Lucinio Júdez
  • de Rosario Andrés
  • Carlos Pérez Hugalde
  • Elvira Urzainqui
  • Miguel Ibáñez

Abstract

This paper presents a procedure used to estimate the recreational use value of “Tablas de Daimiel” National Park by applying the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) with single dichotomous choice, using the truncated mean as welfare measure. This valuation is based on 433 interviews of visitors made during the spring and summer 1996. The sample allocation among the bids offered in the surveys is based on the Duffield and Patterson’s method which allows to get the minimal variance of the truncated mean estimator. The recreational values of the Park are not significantly different for the two periods in which the surveys have been carried out. Finally, the tests to study the “interviewers effect” and to analyse the relations between the willingness to pay (WTP) and various interviewees’ features don’t invalidate the procedure adopted to determine the recreational use value of this National Park.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucinio Júdez & de Rosario Andrés & Carlos Pérez Hugalde & Elvira Urzainqui & Miguel Ibáñez, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 48, pages 37-60.
    • Handle: RePEc:rae:jouces:v:48:y:1998:p:37-60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/206273/2/CESR-48-37-60.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    2. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
    3. Sellar, Christine & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Stoll, John R., 1986. "Specification of the logit model: The case of valuation of nonmarket goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 382-390, December.
    4. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    5. Richard C. Ready & Dayuan Hu, 1995. "Statistical Approaches to the Fat Tail Problem for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 491-499.
    6. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    7. Boyle, Kevin J. & Welsh, Michael P. & Bishop, Richard C., 1988. "Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: comment," MPRA Paper 31237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
    9. Christine Seller & John R. Stoll & Jean-Paul Chavas, 1985. "Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 156-175.
    10. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    12. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    13. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
    14. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    15. François Bonnieux & Philippe Le Goffe & Dominique Vermersch, 1995. "La méthode d'évaluation contingente : application à la qualité des eaux littorales," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 117(1), pages 89-106.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucinio Júdez & Rosario de Andrés & Carlos Pérez Hugalde & Elvira Urzainqui & Miguel Ibáñez, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Post-Print hal-01200908, HAL.
    2. Júdez, Lucinio & de Andrés, Rosario & Pérez Hugalde, Carlos & Urzainqui, Elvira & Ibáñez, Miguel, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 48.
    3. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    4. Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2000. "Dichotomous choice contingent valuation probability distributions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), pages 1-20.
    5. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    6. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    7. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, "undated". "Intuitive Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 9609, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    8. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    9. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    10. Sunwoo Park & Namho Chung & Won Seok Lee, 2020. "Preserving the Culture of Jeju Haenyeo (Women Divers) as a Sustainable Tourism Resource," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Lee, Choong-Ki & W. Mjelde, James, 2007. "Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: The case of the Korean DMZ," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 511-520, August.
    12. García De La Fuente, L. & Colina Vuelta, A., 2004. "Métodos directos e indirectos en la valoración económica de bienes ambientales, aplicación al valor de uso recreativo del Parque Natural de Somiedo," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 22, pages 1-26, Diciembre.
    13. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    14. Talwar, Shagorika, 1995. "An evaluation of statistical efficiency and bias trade-off involved with the use of follow-up questioning in the contingent valuation of environmental amenities," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000018160, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    16. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    17. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    18. Ian Langford & Ian Bateman & Hugh Langford, 1996. "A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(3), pages 197-211, April.
    19. Ryan, Mandy, 1998. "Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 179-204, April.
    20. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rae:jouces:v:48:y:1998:p:37-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Saux-Nogues (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inrapfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.