IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecdequ/v28y2014i1p87-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine M. H. Keske
  • Adam Mayer

Abstract

This study uses a contingent valuation model to evaluate visitors’ stated willingness to pay (WTP) for recreation at Colorado “Fourteeners†: peaks that rise higher than 14,000 feet. The study also assesses the respondents’ self-reported response uncertainty. One scenario queries respondents about a hypothetical situation in which they would pay an entrance fee where 80% of the funds are used on-site, and the degree of certainty with which they answered the question. Like prior articles from this 6-year project (2006-2012), results indicate a high WTP for recreation on Colorado Fourteeners. Results reveal that 62% of respondents are willing to incur an additional fee of $20 or less to recreate at the study site. Regardless of whether or not the respondent is willing to pay an additional fee for recreation, approximately 90% of respondents report a high level of certainty in their stated answers to both the WTP and the fee questions, which could be connected to the recreators’ sense of place on Fourteeners. Therefore, recreators exhibit clear preferences and low uncertainty in their WTP for general cost increases and localized access fees. Implications could have a complex effect on when, if, and how fees should be applied in “New West†economies reliant on revenues from recreation.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:28:y:2014:i:1:p:87-100
    DOI: 10.1177/0891242413506744
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0891242413506744
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0891242413506744?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. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    2. Loomis, John & Ekstrand, Earl, 1998. "Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 29-41, October.
    3. Catherine M.H. Keske & Greta Lohman & John B. Loomis, 2013. "Do Respondents Report Willingness-to-Pay on a per Person or per Group Basis? A High Mountain Recreation Example," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 133-145, February.
    4. Rebecca Moore & Richard C. Bishop & Bill Provencher & Patricia A. Champ, 2010. "Accounting for Respondent Uncertainty to Improve Willingness‐to‐Pay Estimates," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(3), pages 381-401, September.
    5. Catherine M. Keske & John B. Loomis, 2008. "Regional Economic Contribution and Net Economic Values of Opening Access to Three Colorado Fourteeners," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(2), pages 249-262, June.
    6. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2009. "A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 166-180, October.
    7. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    8. John Loomis & Catherine Keske, 2012. "Did The Great Recession Reduce Visitor Spending And Willingness To Pay For Nature‐Based Recreation? Evidence From 2006 And 2009," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(2), pages 238-246, April.
    9. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Michael P Johnson, 2001. "Environmental Impacts of Urban Sprawl: A Survey of the Literature and Proposed Research Agenda," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(4), pages 717-735, April.
    11. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    12. Godfrey, E. Bruce, 2001. "Charging Fair Market Value For Using Federal Lands: Some Implications Of An Ignored Policy," Current Issues in Rangeland Resource Economics: Symposium Proceedings (2001) 16630, Western Regional Coordinating Committee on Rangeland Economics: WCC-55.
    13. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    14. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    15. Katherine Inman & Donald M. Mcleod, 2002. "Property Rights and Public Interests: A Wyoming Agricultural Lands Study," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 91-114.
    16. Shultz, Steven & Pinazzo, Jorge & Cifuentes, Miguel, 1998. "Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 131-149, February.
    17. Ma, Shan & Lupi, Frank & Swinton, Scott M. & Chen, Huilan, 2011. "Modeling Certainty-Adjusted Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Service Improvement from Agriculture," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103734, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Keske, Catherine M. & Loomis, John B., 2007. "High Economic Values from High Peaks of the West," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8.
    19. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    20. Therese C. Grijalva & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Paul M. Jakus & W. Douglass Shaw, 2002. "Valuing the Loss of Rock Climbing Access in Wilderness Areas: A National-Level, Random-Utility Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 103-120.
    21. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    22. Chung, Jin Young & Kyle, Gerard T. & Petrick, James F. & Absher, James D., 2011. "Fairness of prices, user fee policy and willingness to pay among visitors to a national forest," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 1038-1046.
    23. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2009. "A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-15, October.
    24. Creel, Michael D & Loomis, John B, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Welfare Measures with Application to a Problem of Truncated Counts," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(2), pages 370-373, May.
    25. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    26. Nick Hanley & W. Douglass Shaw & Robert E. Wright (ed.), 2003. "The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2712.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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 M.H. Keske & Greta Lohman & John B. Loomis, 2013. "Do Respondents Report Willingness-to-Pay on a per Person or per Group Basis? A High Mountain Recreation Example," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 133-145, February.
    2. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Mart󹑺-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    3. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    4. Rebecca Moore & Richard C. Bishop & Bill Provencher & Patricia A. Champ, 2010. "Accounting for Respondent Uncertainty to Improve Willingness‐to‐Pay Estimates," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(3), pages 381-401, September.
    5. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    6. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    7. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    8. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    9. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Liu, Xuemin, 2008. "Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 328-335, December.
    10. Poe, Gregory L. & Giraud, Kelly L. & Loomis, John B., 2001. "Simple Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions: Application to Internal and External Scope Tests in Contingent Valuation," Staff Papers 121130, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    11. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    12. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    13. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    14. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    15. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    16. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "They doth protest too much, methinks: Reply to “Reply to Whitehead”," Working Papers 24-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    17. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    18. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    19. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.
    20. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2003. "A Comparison Of Cheap Talk And Alternative Certainty Calibration Techniques In Contingent Valuation," Working Paper Series 14517, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.

    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:sae:ecdequ:v:28:y:2014:i:1:p:87-100. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.