IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/26-09.html

Do Any Differences in Estimated Recreation Benefits from Probability and Opt-in Samples Vary with Valuation Method?

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Whitehead
  • Tim Haab
  • Sherry L. Larkin
  • John B. Loomis
  • Sergio Alvarez
  • Andrew Ropicki

Abstract

Estimating recreation benefits from environmental events or regulatory actions often requires household survey data. Probability-based sampling is preferred but costly; opt-in panels cost less but their welfare estimates may be biased. This paper compares probability-based and opt-in samples using travel cost method (TCM) and contingent valuation method (CVM) estimates of recreation losses from the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill in northwest Florida. Opt-in estimates exceed probability-based estimates by 26% under TCM and by 20% to 32% under CVM. Restricting CVM "yes" responses to those respondents most certain they would pay narrows the gap, but it remains larger than the TCM gap. Key Words: contingent valuation method, opt-in panel data, probability-based panel data, travel cost method.

Suggested Citation

  • John C. Whitehead & Tim Haab & Sherry L. Larkin & John B. Loomis & Sergio Alvarez & Andrew Ropicki, 2026. "Do Any Differences in Estimated Recreation Benefits from Probability and Opt-in Samples Vary with Valuation Method?," Working Papers 26-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:26-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp2609.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:apl:wpaper:26-09. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.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.