IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v38y2006i15p1725-1735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of contingent valuation method and random utility model estimates of the value of avoiding reductions in king mackerel bag limits

Author

Listed:
  • John Whitehead

Abstract

This 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.

Suggested Citation

  • John Whitehead, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation method and random utility model estimates of the value of avoiding reductions in king mackerel bag limits," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(15), pages 1725-1735.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:38:y:2006:i:15:p:1725-1735
    DOI: 10.1080/00036840500427130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840500427130
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. James Thornton, 2000. "Physician choice of medical specialty: do economic incentives matter?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(11), pages 1419-1428.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:applec:v:38:y:2006:i:15:p:1725-1735. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.