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

Using Contingent Choice Surveys to Inform National Park Management

Contingent choice surveys, in which respondents rate or rank alternative scenarios describing potential futures composed of varying levels of several different attributes, can help national park managers by identifying the preferences of visitors and also the nonuse values generated by park attributes. Many alternative combinations of park attributes can be explored efficiently, helping park managers to identify promising alternatives to be explored further during park planning processes. The surveys can be integrated easily into multiple stages of the existing National Park Service planning process. Another benefit of using contingent choice surveys in park planning is that it will foster interdisciplinarity. This paper describes National Park Service management policies and how contingent choice techniques can be integrated into them. A description of the different steps of a contingent choice analysis follows. Examples from Acadia National Park and North Cascades National Park illustrate the technique. The paper ends with a discussion of issues that future research should address.national park, management, contingent choice, choice experiments, nonuse values

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://commons.colgate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=econ_facschol
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Department of Economics, Colgate University in its series Working Papers with number 2012-02.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cgt:wpaper:2012-02
Contact details of provider: Postal: 13 Oak Drive, Hamilton, NY 13346-1389
Phone: (315) 228-7533
Fax: (315) 228-7033
Web page: http://www.colgate.edu/academics/departments-and-programs/economics

More information through EDIRC

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. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15.
  2. Robert W. Turner & Laura Noddin & Alita Giuda, 2005. "Estimating nonuse values using conjoint analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15.
  3. Robert W. Turner, 2000. "Managing Multiple Activities in a National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(3), pages 473-485.
  4. Bryon P. Allen & John B. Loomis, 2008. "The Decision To Use Benefit Transfer Or Conduct Original Valuation Research For Benefit-Cost And Policy Analysis," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(1), pages 1-12, 01.
  5. 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.
  6. Bart Vermeulen & Peter Goos & Riccardo Scarpa & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "Bayesian Conjoint Choice Designs for Measuring Willingness to Pay," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 129-149, January.
  7. Kevin J. Boyle & Nicolai V. Kuminoff & Christopher F. Parmeter & Jaren C. Pope, 2010. "The Benefit-Transfer Challenges," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 161-182, October.
  8. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:17:y:2005:i:7:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
  12. Robert J. Johnston & Randall S. Rosenberger, 2010. "Methods, Trends And Controversies In Contemporary Benefit Transfer," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 479-510, 07.
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:cgt:wpaper:2012-02. 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: (Chad Sparber)

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.