IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cgt/wpaper/2012-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Contingent Choice Surveys to Inform National Park Management

Author

Abstract

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

Suggested Citation

  • Turner, Robert, 2012. "Using Contingent Choice Surveys to Inform National Park Management," Working Papers 2012-02, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 06 Mar 2013.
  • Handle: RePEc:cgt:wpaper:2012-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    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. 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, July.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    6. 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, January.
    7. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2008. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9787111235767, January.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Robert W. Turner & Laura Noddin & Alita Giuda, 2005. "Estimating nonuse values using conjoint analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15.
    13. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    14. Bart Vermeulen & Peter Goos & Riccardo Scarpa & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "Bayesian Conjoint Choice Designs for Measuring Willingness to Pay," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 129-149, January.
    15. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:17:y:2005:i:7:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Turner, Robert & Willmarth, Blake, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park: Results from a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 23 Jan 2014.
    2. Haefele, Michelle & Loomis, John & Bilmes, Linda J., 2016. "Total Economic Valuation of the National Park Service Lands and Programs: Results of a Survey of the American Public," Working Paper Series 16-024, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    national park; management; contingent choice; choice experiments; nonuse values;

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/declgus.html .

    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.