Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:27:25.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visitor Preferences and Values for Water-Based Recreation: A Case Study of the Ocala National Forest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Ram K. Shrestha ,
Janaki R.R. Alavalapati ,
Taylor V. Stein ,
Douglas R. Carter  and
Christine B. Denny
Ram K. Shrestha
Affiliation:
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Janaki R.R. Alavalapati
Affiliation:
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Taylor V. Stein
Affiliation:
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Douglas R. Carter
Affiliation:
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Christine B. Denny
Affiliation:
Pandion Systems, Inc., Gainesville, FL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We used the open-ended contingent valuation method to elicit willingness to pay (WTP) for day visitors and extended visitors on the Ocala National Forest (ONF), Florida. A Tobit model specification was applied to account for the issues involved with censored WTP bids. The results reveal that visitors would pay more for improved recreational facilities at the ONF. In particular, our estimates show that visitors would pay $1 million for basic facilities, $1.9 million for moderate improvements, and $2.5 million for more improvements.

Keywords

contingent valuationTobit analysiswater-based recreationQ23Q26
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , December 2002 , pp. 547 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Betz, C.J., English, D.B.K., and Cordell, H.K.. “Outdoor Recreation Resources.” Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., Bowker, J.M., English, D.B.K., Mou, S.H., Bergstrom, J.C., Teasley, R.J., Tarrant, M.A., and Loomis, J.B., eds. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 1999.Google Scholar
Bowker, J.M., English, D.B.K., and Cordell, H.K.. “Projections of Outdoor Recreation Participation to 2050.” Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., Bowker, J.M., English, D.B.K., Mou, S.H., Bergstrom, J.C., Teasley, R.J., Tarrant, M.A., and Loomis, J.B., eds. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 1999.Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J., Reiling, S.D., and Phillips, M.L.. “Species Substitution and Question Sequencing in Contingent Valuation Surveys Evaluating the Hunting of Several Types of Wildlife.” Leisure Sciences 12(1990):103-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P.J., Driver, B.L., and McConnell, C.. “The Opportunity Spectrum Concept and Behavioral Information in Outdoor Recreation Resource Supply Inventories: Background and Application.” Integrated Inventories of Renewable Natural Resources: Proceedings of the Workshop. Lund, H.G., La Bau, V.J., Ffolliott, P.E., and Robinson, D.W., technical coordinators. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-55. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1978.Google Scholar
Cordell, H.K. “National Survey on Recreation and the Environment.” Presentation to the Southeast Recreation Research Conference, Asheville, NC, February 2001, pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., Bowker, J.M., English, D.B.K., Mou, S.H., Bergstrom, J.C., Teasley, R.J., Tarrant, M.A., and Loomis, J.B., eds. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: An National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 1999.Google Scholar
Driver, B.L., Douglass, R.W., and Loomis, J.B.. “Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness in America: Benefits and History.” Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., Bowker, J.M., English, D.B.K., Mou, S.H., Bergstrom, J.C., Teasley, R.J., Tarrant, M.A., and Loomis, J.B., eds. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 1999.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B.K., Offenbach, L.A., Cable, T.T., and Cook, P.S.. “Discrete/Continuous Contingent Valuation of Private Hunting Access in Kansas.” Journal of Environmental Management 39(1993):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W.H.Econometric Analysis, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
Halstead, J.M., Lindsay, B.E., and Brown, C.M.. “Use of the Tobit Model in Contingent Valuation: Experimental Evidence from the Pemige-wasset Wilderness Area.” Journal of Environmental Management 33(1991):79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoehn, J.P., and Randall, A.. “A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14(1987):226-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J.B., and Walsh, R.G.. Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs, 2nd ed. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc., 1997.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S.Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
McDonald, J.F., and Moffitt, R.A.. “The Uses of Tobit Analysis.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 62(1980):318-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendenhall, W., Wackerly, D.D., and Scheaffer, R.L.. Mathematical Statistics with Applications, 4th ed. Boston: PWS-KENT Publishing Company, 1990.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T.. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
Norris, P.E., and Batie, S.S.. “Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of Tobit Analysis.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 19(1987):79–90.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, R.S., and Loomis, J.B.. “Panel Stratification in Meta-Analysis of Economic Studies: An Investigation of Its Effects in the Recreation Valuation Literature.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(2000):459-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, R.K., and Loomis, J.B.. “Testing Meta-Analysis Model for Benefit Transfer in International Outdoor Recreation.” Ecological Economics 39(2001):67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V.K. “Selection and Recreation Demand.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1988):29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, T.V., and Lee, M.E.. “Managing Recreation Resources for Positive Outcomes: An Application of Benefits-Based Management.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13(1995):52–70.Google Scholar
Virden, R.J., and Knopf, R.. “Activities, Experiences, and Environmental Settings: A Case Study of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Relationships.” Leisure Sciences 11(1989):159-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagar, J.A. “Quality in Outdoor Recreation.” Trends in Parks and Recreation 3(1966):9–12.Google Scholar
Walsh, R.G., Johnson, D.M., and McKean, J.R.. “Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Demand Studies, 1968-1988.” Water Resources Research 28(1992):707-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziemer, R.F., and White, F.C.. “A Tobit Model of the Demand for Farmland.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 13(1981):105-9.Google Scholar