IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v4y2014i2p2158244014528916.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park

Author

Listed:
  • Robert W. Turner
  • Blake Willmarth

Abstract

We present the results of a new, tournament-style design of a contingent choice survey about management options at North Cascades National Park (NCNP). In our tournament-style survey, each respondent explicitly ranks several sets of scenarios and, in addition, several other rankings are implicit. Inclusion of the implicit rankings leads to some differences in coefficient estimates but almost no differences in valuation measures. This suggests that the tournament-style format can increase the efficiency of estimates, although further investigation is needed. We find strong evidence of nonuse values for both cultural and natural resource protection; indeed, nonuse values seem to dominate preferences even for those who have visited NCNP. We further find that respondents in general seem to value the protection of natural resources more than the protection of cultural resources, although both are valuable.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert W. Turner & Blake Willmarth, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:2:p:2158244014528916
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244014528916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244014528916
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244014528916?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Loomis & Armando Gonzalez-Caban & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 499-506.
    2. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    3. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    4. Christopher G. Leggett & Naomi S. Kleckner & Kevin J. Boyle & John W. Dufield & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2003. "Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 561-575.
    5. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    6. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1991. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 253-268, November.
    8. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford, 1997. "Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 571-582.
    9. Ståle Navrud & Richard C. Ready (ed.), 2002. "Valuing Cultural Heritage," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1759.
    10. 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, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Richard G. Walsh & John B. Loomis & Richard A. Gillman, 1984. "Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 60(1), pages 14-29.
    13. John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    14. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Louviere, Jordan, 1997. "Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: Testing for framing effects with choice modelling," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(1), pages 1-20.
    15. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    16. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    17. Garrod, G. D. & Willis, K. G., 1997. "The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 45-61, April.
    18. Caplan, Arthur J. & Grijalva, Therese C. & Jakus, Paul M., 2002. "Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 185-197, December.
    19. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    20. Gamini Herath & John Kennedy, 2004. "Estimating the Economic Value of Mount Buffalo National Park with the Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Models," Tourism Economics, , vol. 10(1), pages 63-78, March.
    21. Robert W. Turner & W. Reed Walker, 2006. "Explaining the Determinants of Operating Budgets at U.S. National Parks," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(5), pages 551-573, September.
    22. 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.
    23. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    24. Robert W. Turner & Laura Noddin & Alita Giuda, 2005. "Estimating nonuse values using conjoint analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15.
    25. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
    26. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    27. Catherine Heyes & Anthony Heyes, 1999. "Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 124-139, January.
    28. Tran Tuan & Stale Navrud, 2007. "Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 51-69, September.
    29. Gonzalez, Matias & Leon, Carmelo J., 2003. "Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 159-169, June.
    30. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:17:y:2005:i:7:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haefele, Michelle & Loomis, John & Bilmes, Linda J., 2016. "Total Economic Valuation of the National Park Service Lands and Programs: Results of a Survey of the American Public," Working Paper Series 16-024, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Miller, Sini & Tait, Peter & Saunders, Caroline, 2015. "Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: A choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 207-214.

    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. Turner, Robert & Willmarth, Blake, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park: Results from a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 23 Jan 2014.
    2. Willmarth, Blake & Turner, Robert, 2010. "Respondent Consistency in a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2010-05, Department of Economics, Colgate University.
    3. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    4. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    5. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    6. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    8. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    9. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Giovanni B. Concu, 2005. "Are non-use values distance-independent? Identifying the market area using a choice modelling experiment," Murray-Darling Program Working Papers WP6M05, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
    12. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:17:y:2005:i:7:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
    15. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    16. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    17. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    18. G. Concu, 2004. "Effects of distance on non-use values," Working Paper CRENoS 200411, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    19. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    20. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    21. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.

    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:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:2:p:2158244014528916. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.