IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tul/wpaper/1707.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Valuable are National Parks? Evidence from a Proposed National Park Expansion in Alaska

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Spanbauer

    () (Department of Economics, Tulane University)

  • Lindsay Johnson

    () (KIPP McDonogh 15 School for the Creative Arts)

  • Patrick Button

    () (Department of Economics, Tulane University)

Abstract

We estimate the national average passive use value for Alaskan National Parks. Passive use refers to the value that individuals get from the existence of a public good without actually using it. We field a questionnaire asking respondents, using the contingent valuation method, how much they would pay for a 5% expansion of Denali National Park. We find that respondents are willing to pay $115 to $409 for this expansion, according our preferred specifications. Respondents answers to questions about what motivated their support and questions about their connections to Alaska indicate that support for the expansion is driven by passive use values.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Spanbauer & Lindsay Johnson & Patrick Button, 2017. "How Valuable are National Parks? Evidence from a Proposed National Park Expansion in Alaska," Working Papers 1707, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:tul:wpaper:1707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.tulane.edu/RePEc/pdf/tul1707.pdf
    File Function: First Version, Jul 2017
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hadker, Nandini & Sharma, Sudhir & David, Ashish & Muraleedharan, T. R., 1997. "Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a Contingent Valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 105-122, May.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 1997. "Contingent Valuation: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests Since the NOAA Panel," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1501-1507.
    3. Cawley, John, 2008. "Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, pages 281-292.
    4. Bateman, Ian J. & Willis, Kenneth G. (ed.), 2001. "Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU , and developing Countries," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199248919.
    5. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    6. Jonathan Gruber, 1992. "The Efficiency of a Group-Specific Mandated Benefit: Evidence From Health Insurance Benefits for Maternity," NBER Working Papers 4157, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Hanley, Nick & Craig, Stephen, 1991. "Wilderness development decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher model: The case of Scotland's 'flow country'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 145-164, November.
    8. Cawley, John, 2008. "Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, pages 281-292.
    9. John P. Hoehn, 1991. "Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(2), pages 289-299.
    10. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    11. Bruce K. Johnson & John C. Whitehead & Daniel S. Mason & Gordon J. Walker, 2012. "Willingness to Pay for Downtown Public Goods Generated by Large, Sports-Anchored Development Projects: The CVM Approach," Working Papers 12-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    12. Diamond, Peter, 1996. "Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 337-347, May.
    13. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang, 1998. "Part-Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    14. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, pages 43-56.
    15. Stanislav Kolenikov, 2014. "Calibrating survey data using iterative proportional fitting (raking)," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 14(1), pages 22-59, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    National Parks; willingness-to-pay; nature conservation; contingent valuation; biodiversity; environmental policy;

    JEL classification:

    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations

    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:tul:wpaper:1707. 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: (Rodrigo Aranda Balcazar). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/detulus.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.