Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T07:38:46.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recreational Activities and Nonmarket Valuation: The Conceptualization Issue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

John R. Stoll
John R. Stoll*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
Get access

Extract

Recreational pursuits have been discussed by economists and others involved in the planning of public sector investment since early in the 1930s. This discussion developed from a peripheral concern to an intense interest as legislative legitimacy was gained for the use of recreational benefit measures to justify public sector investment in multiple purpose river developments. The history of recreation benefit assessment has been adequately discussed elsewhere. In this paper, the justification for inclusion of recreation benefits in economic analyses is not addressed. However, it is worth noting that emphasis has shifted over time from an almost exclusive concern with recreation opportunities provided by development activities to an emphasis upon the recreation opportunities lost in that process as well.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , December 1983 , pp. 119 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1983

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

Anderson, F. J. and Bonsor, N. C.. “Allocation, Congestion and the Valuation of Recreational Resources.” Land Econ. 50(1974):51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. S. “A Theory of the Allocation of Time.” Econ. J. 75(1965):493–517.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. C, and Heberlein, T. A.. “Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 61(1979):626–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, R. C, and Heberlein, T. A.. “Simulated Markets, Hypothetical Markets, and Travel Cost Analysis: Alternative Methods of Estimating Outdoor Recreational Demand.” Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Paper No. 187, University of Wisconsin, 1980.Google Scholar
Blank, F. D., Brookshire, S., Crocker, T., d'Arge, R., and Horst, R.. “Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences: A Case Study of the Economic Value of Visibility.” A Report prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute, 1977.Google Scholar
Brookshire, D. S., Randall, A., and Stoll, J. R.. “Valuing Increments and Decrements in Natural Resources Service Flows.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 62(1980):478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookshire, D. S., Thayer, M. A., Schulze, W. D., and d'Arge, R. C.. “Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 72(1982):165—177.Google Scholar
Burt, O. R., and Brewer, D.. “Estimation of Net Social Benefits from Outdoor Recreation.” Econometrica 39(1971):813–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cichetti, C. J., Fisher, A. C., and Smith, V. K.. “An Econometric Evaluation of a Generalized Consumer Surplus Measure: The Mineral King Controversy.” Econometrica 44(1976):1259–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clawson, M. “Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation.” Resources for the Future, Reprint No. 10, 1959.Google Scholar
Davis, R. K. “Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study of the Maine Woods.” Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1963.Google Scholar
Dwyer, J. F., Kelley, J. R., and Bowes, M. D.. “Improved Procedures for Valuation of the Contribution of Recreation to National Economics Development.” Res. Rpt. No. 128. University of Illinois, Water Resources Center, 1977.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. E.The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammack, J. K., and Brown, G. M. Jr. Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Harberger, A. C. “Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics: An Interpretive Essay.” J. Econ. Lit. 9(1971):785–797.Google Scholar
Hotelling, H., In a letter quoted by Prewitt, Roy E.. “An Economic Study of the Monetary Evaluation of Recreation in the National Parks.” Washington: U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, 1949 (Quoted letter dated June 18, 1947).Google Scholar
Lancaster, K. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” J. Polit. Econ. 74(1966): 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, K.Consumer Demand: A New Approach. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Lipsey, R. G., and Rosenbluth, G.. “A Contribution to the New Theory of Demand: A Rehabilitation of the Giffen Good.” Canadian J. Econ. 4(1971): 131–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majid, I., Sinden, J. A., and Randall, A.. “Benefit Evaluation of Increments to Existing Systems of Public Facilities.” Land Econ. 59(1983):forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, K. E., and Strand, I.. “Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis: An Application to Sportfishing.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 63(1981): 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, R. T., and Becker, G. S.. “On the New Theory of Consumer Behavior.” Swedish J. Econ. 75(1973):378–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishan, E. J.Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York: Praeger publishers, 1976.Google Scholar
Randall, A.O.Grunewald, S. Johnson, Ausness, R., and Pagoulatos, A.. “Reclaiming Coal Surface Mines in Central Appalachia: A Case Study of the Benefits and Costs.” Land Econ. 54(1978):472–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, A., Ives, B., and Eastman, E.. “Bidding Games for Valuation of Aesthetic Environmental Improvements.” J. Environ. Econ. Mgmt. 1(1974): 132–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, W. D., d'Arge, R. C., and Brookshire, D. S.. “Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments.” Land Econ. 57(1981): 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellar, C, Stoll, J. R., and Chavas, Jean-Paul. “Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques. Dept. of Agr. Econ., Texas A&M University, Resources Group Working Paper, 1983.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. “The Principle of Unanimity and Voluntary Consent in Social Choice.” J. Polit. Econ. 85(1977): 1125–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, G. J., and Becker, G. S.. “De Gustibus Non est Disputandum.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 67(1977):76–90.Google Scholar
Thayer, M. A. “Contingent Valuation Techniques for Assessing Environmental Impacts: Further Evidence.” J. Environ. Econ. Mgmt. 8(1981):27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Water Resources Council. “Proposed Rules for Evaluating Benefits and Costs of Federal Water Resources Projects.” Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 102, Thursday, May 24, 1979.Google Scholar
Willig, R. D. “Consumer's Surplus Without Apology.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 66(1976):589–597.Google Scholar