IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v39y2010i01p89-100_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Welfare Effects of Restricting Off-Highway Vehicle Access to Public Lands

Author

Listed:
  • Jakus, Paul M.
  • Keith, John E.
  • Liu, Lu
  • Blahna, Dale

Abstract

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is a rapidly growing outdoor activity that results in a host of environmental and management problems. Federal agencies have been directed to develop travel management plans to improve recreation experiences, reduce social conflicts, and diminish environmental impacts of OHVs. We examine the effect of land access restrictions on the welfare of OHV enthusiasts in Utah using Murdock's unobserved heterogeneity random utility model (Murdock 2006). Our models indicate that changing access to public lands from fully “open” to “limited” results in relatively small welfare losses, but that prohibiting access results in much larger welfare losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakus, Paul M. & Keith, John E. & Liu, Lu & Blahna, Dale, 2010. "The Welfare Effects of Restricting Off-Highway Vehicle Access to Public Lands," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 89-100, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:39:y:2010:i:01:p:89-100_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500001842/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    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. Nagler, Amy M. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Taylor, David T. & Foulke, Thomas K., 2013. "Community Economic Contributions from Recreational Trails Usage on Public Lands: Implications from a Comprehensive Wyoming Case Study," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 12(2), pages 1-11.
    2. Melstrom, Richard & Lupi, Frank, 2012. "Using a Control Function to Resolve the Travel Cost Endogeneity Problem in Recreation Demand Models," MPRA Paper 48036, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2013.
    3. Dundas, Steven J. & von Haefen, Roger H. & Mansfield, Carol, 2016. "Costs of Endangered Species Protection on Public Lands: Evidence from Cape Hatteras National Seashore," CEnREP Working Papers 264978, North Carolina State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    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. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Jenkins, Robin R. & Martinez, Salvador A. & Palmer, Karen & Podolsky, Michael J., 2003. "The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 294-318, March.
    3. Parsons, George R. & Jakus, Paul M. & Tomasi, Ted, 1999. "A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 143-157, September.
    4. Egan, Kevin & Herriges, Joseph, 2006. "Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 567-581, September.
    5. J. Shonkwiler & Nick Hanley, 2003. "A New Approach to Random Utility Modeling using the Dirichlet Multinomial Distribution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 401-416, November.
    6. Hermann Donfouet & Ephias Makaudze & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Eric Malin, 2011. "The determinants of the willingness-to-pay for community-based prepayment scheme in rural Cameroon," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 209-220, September.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    8. Babatunde O. Abidoye & Joseph A. Herriges & Justin L. Tobias, 2012. "Controlling for Observed and Unobserved Site Characteristics in RUM Models of Recreation Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1070-1093.
    9. Richard Batley & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 337-366, September.
    10. Crooker, John R., 2007. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare with Measurement Error in Prices: Techniques for Non-Market Resource Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 239-252, October.
    11. Michael Kremer & Jessica Leino & Edward Miguel & Alix Peterson Zwane, 2011. "Spring Cleaning: Rural Water Impacts, Valuation, and Property Rights Institutions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(1), pages 145-205.
    12. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    13. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    14. Fiebig, Denzil G. & Haas, Marion & Hossain, Ishrat & Street, Deborah J. & Viney, Rosalie, 2009. "Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1766-1774, May.
    15. Constant I. Tra, 2013. "Nonlinear income effects in random utility models: revisiting the accuracy of the representative consumer approximation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 55-63, January.
    16. Moeltner, Klaus, 2003. "Addressing aggregation bias in zonal recreation models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 128-144, January.
    17. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    18. Sánchez, José J. & Baerenklau, Ken & González-Cabán, Armando, 2016. "Valuing hypothetical wildfire impacts with a Kuhn–Tucker model of recreation demand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 63-70.
    19. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    20. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.

    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:cup:agrerw:v:39:y:2010:i:01:p:89-100_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.