IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/usdami/377643.html

Recreation Benefits of Instream Flow: Application to Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers

Author

Listed:
  • Duffield, John W.
  • Ehlers, Susan M.
  • Brown, Thomas C.

Abstract

An important public policy issue in the Western U.S. is the allocation of water between instream uses including recreation and fisheries and consumptive uses such as irrigation. One basis for identifying appropriate levels of instream flows is maximization of net economic benefits. Since markets do not exist for most instream uses, valuation requires use of nonmarket techniques. This study provides a general framework for estimating the recreational value of instream flows. An application to Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers is presented. Based on dichotomous choice contingent valuation, the marginal value of instream flows is in the range of $10 to $20 at low flow levels for these rivers. Precision of the estimates is examined through a simulation approach. At some flow levels, allocative gains may be achieved on the study rivers by reallocating water from consumptive to instream uses.

Suggested Citation

  • Duffield, John W. & Ehlers, Susan M. & Brown, Thomas C., 1991. "Recreation Benefits of Instream Flow: Application to Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers," USDA Miscellaneous 377643, United States Department of Agriculture.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:usdami:377643
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.377643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/377643/files/RecreationBenefitsInstreamFlow-MT-1991.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.377643?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. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    2. 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).
    3. Mary Jo Kealy & John F. Dovidio & Mark L. Rockel, 1988. "Accuracy in Valuation Is a Matter of Degree," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(2), pages 158-171.
    4. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    5. David F. Bradford, 1970. "Benefit‐Cost Analysis And Demand Curves For Public Goods," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 775-791, November.
    6. Patterson, David A. & Duffield, John W., 1991. "Comment on Cameron's censored logistic regression model for referendum data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 275-283, May.
    7. John T. Daubert & Robert A. Young, 1981. "Recreational Demands for Maintaining Instream Flows: A Contingent Valuation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(4), pages 666-676.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Per-Olov Johansson & Bengt Kriström & Karl Göran Mäler, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1054-1056.
    11. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    12. Kenneth E. McConnell, 1975. "Some Problems in Estimating the Demand for Outdoor Recreation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 57(2), pages 330-334.
    13. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, September.
    4. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, "undated". "Intuitive Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 9609, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    7. Duffield, John & Butkay, Susan & Allen, Stewart, 1990. "Economic Value of Recreation and Preservation Benefits of Instream Flow," USDA Miscellaneous 396412, United States Department of Agriculture.
    8. Tanguay, Mark & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 1995. "An Economic Evaluation of Woodland Caribou Conservation Programs in Northwestern Saskatchewan," Project Report Series 24039, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    9. Kelly Giraud & John Loomis & Joseph Cooper, 2001. "A Comparison of Willingness to Pay Estimation Techniques From Referendum Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(4), pages 331-346, December.
    10. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
    11. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Seung-Jun Kwak & Seung-Hoon Yoo & Sang-Yong Han, 2003. "Estimating the Public's Value for Urban Forest in the Seoul Metropolitan Area of Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(11), pages 2207-2221, October.
    14. Poe, Gregory L. & Lossin, Eric K. & Welsh, Michael P., 1992. "A Convolutions Approach to Measuring the Differences in Benefit Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Staff Papers 200545, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    15. Anni Huhtala, 2000. "Binary Choice Valuation Studies with Heteregeneous Preferences Regarding the Program Being Valued," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 263-279, July.
    16. Brugnaro, Caetano, 2010. "Valuing Riparian Forests Restoration: a CVM Application in Corumbatai River Basin," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 48(3), January.
    17. Fabrizio Carlevaro & C. Schlesser & M. E. Binet & M. Paul, 2007. "Econometric Modeling and Analysis of Residential Water Demand Based on Unbalanced Panel Data," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 8(4), pages 81-102.
    18. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    19. Gonzalez-Caban, Armando & Loomis, John, 1997. "Economic benefits of maintaining ecological integrity of Rio Mameyes, in Puerto Rico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 63-75, April.
    20. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:ags:usdami:377643. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.usda.gov .

    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.