IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v3y1984i2p103-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Opportunity Costs Of Redwood National Park: Comment And Elaboration

Author

Listed:
  • JOHN LOOMIS
  • RICHARD WALSH
  • JOHN MCKEAN

Abstract

In a recent issue of this journal, Walker (1984) emphasized the need for good economic analysis in public evaluation of national park expansions. We support this but would like to show that a possible reason the economic analysis referred to in Walker's paper was ignored may be the very narrow way in which his analysis was performed. In particular, the opportunity cost per visitor day of Redwood National Park may have been overstated by a factor of 10 by implying the sole benefits of the park expansion were associated with only 10 percent of the park's use days. More importantly, substantial literature on off‐site economic benefits arising from preservation of natural environments is completely ignored. Since the legal purpose of the national parks is not solely related to recreation, this omission reflects a large error in the analysis. This paper's purpose is to apply sensitivity analysis to the opportunity costs per visitor day and illustrate some policy analysis tools commonly used by natural‐resource economists, in and out of government, for evaluating the economic efficiency benefits of preserving unique natural environments. Applying these tools indicates the cost of Redwood National Park may have been as low as 90 cents per household in the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • John Loomis & Richard Walsh & John Mckean, 1984. "The Opportunity Costs Of Redwood National Park: Comment And Elaboration," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 3(2), pages 103-107, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:3:y:1984:i:2:p:103-107
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.1984.tb00800.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1984.tb00800.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1984.tb00800.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles J. Cicchetti & A. Myrick Freeman III, 1971. "Option Demand and Consumer Surplus: Further Comment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 85(3), pages 528-539.
    2. Douglas A. Greenley & Richard G. Walsh & Robert A. Young, 1981. "Option Value: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Recreation and Water Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 96(4), pages 657-673.
    3. Richard C. Bishop, 1982. "Option Value: An Exposition and Extension," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(1), pages 1-15.
    4. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    5. John L. Walker, 1984. "Tall Trees, People, And Politics: The Opportunity Costs Of The Redwood National Park," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 2(5), pages 22-29, March.
    6. Burton A. Weisbrod, 1964. "Collective-Consumption Services of Individual-Consumption Goods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 78(3), pages 471-477.
    7. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    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. John L. Walker, 1984. "REPLY TO LOOMIS, WALSH, AND McKEAN," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 3(2), pages 108-109, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Catherine Kling, 1993. "An assessment of the empirical magnitude of option values for environment goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(5), pages 471-485, October.
    2. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1989. "Information and the concept of option value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 23-37, January.
    3. Robin Gregory & Tim Mcdaniels, 1987. "Valuing environmental losses: What promise does the right measure hold?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 20(1), pages 11-26, April.
    4. Aric P. Shafran, 2014. "Equivalent Option Price With Supply Uncertainty," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(S1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Graham-Tomasi, Theodore & Myers, Robert J., 1989. "On Supply Side Option Value," Staff Papers 13341, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    6. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Ronald Cummings & Glenn Harrison, 1995. "The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: A critical review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 225-247, April.
    8. Asafu-Adjaye, John & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Phillips, William, 1989. "Nonmarket Valuation under Uncertainty," Staff Paper Series 232438, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    9. Jackie Krafft & Isabelle Nicolaï, 1995. "Commitment Procedures In R&D Investments : An Examination Of Different Varieties," Post-Print hal-01799270, HAL.
    10. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    11. Gérard Mondello, 2012. "Ambiguity, Agency Relationships and Adverse Selection," Post-Print halshs-00929978, HAL.
    12. Coggins, Jay S. & Ramezani, Cyrus A., 1998. "An Arbitrage-Free Approach to Quasi-Option Value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 103-125, March.
    13. David A. Graham, 1977. "Cost-Benefit Analysis Under Uncertainty," NBER Working Papers 0194, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Jinhua Zhao & Catherine L. Kling, 2009. "Welfare Measures when Agents can Learn: A Unifying Theory," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1560-1585, October.
    15. Pope, C. Arden III, 1989. "Alternative Opportunities for Allocating the Public Rangeland Resource," WAEA/ WFEA Conference Archive (1929-1995) 244844, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1998. "The economics of global environmental risk," MPRA Paper 8812, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 1988. "Behavioral Implications of Nonmarket Valuation Models," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 36(4), pages 929-939, December.
    18. Sun, Henglun & Bergstrom, John C. & Dorfman, Jeffrey H., 1992. "Estimating the Benefits of Groundwater Contamination Control," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 63-71, December.
    19. Fabrizio Battisti & Carlo Pisano, 2022. "Common Property in Italy. Unresolved Issues and an Appraisal Approach: Towards a Definition of Environmental-Economic Civic Value," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-21, October.
    20. De Silva, Nirodha & Williams, Ryan, 2015. "Assessing The Option Value Of The Ogallala Aquifer In Texas High Plains: A Contingent Valuation Approach," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196921, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    More about this item

    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:bla:coecpo:v:3:y:1984:i:2:p:103-107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.