IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park

  • Carol Mansfield
  • Daniel J. Phaneuf
  • F. Reed Johnson
  • Jui-Chen Yang
  • Robert Beach

We examine snowmobile use conflict in Yellowstone National Park to assess the effect of different winter management policies on heterogeneous visitors’ welfare. Using a stated preference choice experiment we quantify welfare changes for snowmobile riders and non-riders under different snowmobile restrictions. A key determinant of welfare change is visitors’ willingness to trade-off reduced snowmobile access for improved ambient conditions in the park. Our findings support the notion that welfare losses to snowmobile riders could be offset by welfare gains to non-riders, but net benefits will depend on the number of riders and non-riders and the specifics of the policy.

If 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.

File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/84/2/282
Download Restriction: A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 84 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 282-305

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:2:p:282-305
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907.
  2. 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.
  3. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 909-912.
  4. Michael P. McGonagle & Stephen K. Swallow, 2005. "Open Space and Public Access: A Contingent Choice Application to Coastal Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(4).
  5. von Haefen, Roger H., 2003. "Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 145-165, March.
  6. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:2:p:282-305. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.