Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T20:40:10.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuation of Visual-Cultural Benefits from Freshwater Wetlands in Massachusetts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Tirath R. Gupta  and
John H. Foster
Tirath R. Gupta
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Massachusetts
John H. Foster
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Massachusetts
Get access

Extract

A commonly visualized benefit from natural resources is outdoor recreation including activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, and nature study. Due to the extra-market nature of these activities, monetary measures of the benefits emanating from them require use of some kind of simulated prices. The procedure most widely used for this purpose has been that of estimating a demand function, using differential travel costs associated with the locational dispersion of the recreationists, as a proxy price variable. These methodologies may be labeled as “willingness to pay” approaches and have been used by a number of economists.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , October 1973 , pp. 262 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This work was supported by funds provided by the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources, as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (P.L. 88–379), Dr. Joseph S. Larson, Principal Investigator. The authors are also thankful to Professors N. Eugene Engel, Elmar Jarvesoo, and Julius Fabos for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

1. Booth, David A. and Herbert, Paul J., 1971, Environmental Protection – The Conservation Commission Approach, Reprint Series No. 7, (Amherst, Mass., University of Massachusetts, Bureau of Government Research), 8 pp.Google Scholar
2. Brown, William G., Singh, Ajmer, and Castle, Emery N., 1964, An Economic Evaluation of Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Sport Fishery, (Corvallis, Oregon, Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 78), 47 pp.Google Scholar
3. Castle, Emery N., Stoevener, Herbert H., and others, 1972, Multi-Disciplinary Study of Water Quality Relationships : A Case Study of Yaquina Bay, Oregon, (Corvallis, Oregon, Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University), 135 pp.Google Scholar
4. Clawson, Marion, 1959, Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation, (Washington, D. C., Resources for the Future, Inc., Reprint No. 10), 36 pp.Google Scholar
5. Debard, Stuart, Esq. and Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, 1968, Massachusetts Conservation Commission Handbook, (Boston, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources and Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions), 58 pp.Google Scholar
6. Downe, Charles E., 1972, Land Use/Cost – Revenue Analysis, (Pembroke, Massachusetts, Conservation Commission), 13 pp.Google Scholar
7. Giebel, Frederic B., 1971, “Two Hundred and Thirty-Five Acres: Residential Development Versus Open Space”, Unpublished Paper, (Amherst, Massachusetts, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Massachusetts), 7 pp. and Appendix.Google Scholar
8. Goldstein, Jon H., 1971, Competition for Wetlands in the Midwest: An Economic Analysis, (Washington, D. C., Resources for the Future, Inc.), 105 pp.Google Scholar
9. Goodno, Ralph H., 1972, “Environmental Viewpoint : Throw Away the Hoe”, (Danvers, Massachusetts, Northeast Regional Extension Service), 3 pp.Google Scholar
10. Gupta, Tirath R., 1972, “Economic Criteria for Preservation and Use of Inland Wetlands in Massachusetts”, Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, Volume 1, Number 1, pp. 201–210.Google Scholar
11. Helliwell, D. R., 1969, “Valuation of Wildlife Resources”, Regional Studies, Volume III, pp. 41–47.Google Scholar
12. Hotelling, Harold, 1949, Letter quoted in: The Economics of Public Recreation: An Economic Study of the Monetary Evaluation of Recreation in the National Parks, by the National Park Service, (Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of the Interior).Google Scholar
13. Hoyt, Monty, 1971, “Conservation Land Set Aside”, The Christian Science Monitor, December 13.Google Scholar
14. Lemire, Robert A., 1971, “Shape Your Land Use Destiny”, Conservation Leader, Volume XI, No. 1, August-September, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
15. Lemire, Robert A., 1972, “Some Economic and Cultural Implications of Growth and Land Use”, TGC Bulletin, Volume IV, No. 4, April, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
16. Mathisen, J., 1965, “A Plan for Inventorying and Developing Wetland Habitat on Public Lands”, in Wood Duck Management and Research: A Symposium, December 8–9, (Washington, D. C., Wildlife Management Institute), pp. 52–63.Google Scholar
17. Romm, Jeff, 1969, The Value of Reservoir Recreation, (Ithaca, New York, Water Resources and Marine Resources Center, Cornell University), 102 pp.Google Scholar
18. Smardon, Richard C., 1972, Assessing Visual-Cultural Values of Inland Wetlands in Massachusetts, Unpublished Master's Thesis, (Amherst, Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts), 232 pp. and Bibliography and Appendices.Google Scholar
19. Swanson, Dale A., 1972, Land Use Changes and Related Public Sector Cost Functions, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, (Amherst, Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts), 167 pp.Google Scholar
20. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1972, Resource Conservation and Development Memorandum-7 (Rev. 1), (Washington, D. C.), 3 pp. and 2 attachments.Google Scholar