IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/toueco/v14y2008i2p283-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anglers' Valuation of Water Regulation Dam Removal for the Restoration of Angling Conditions at Storsjö-Kapell

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Laitila

    (Örebro University and Statistics Sweden, Örebro, Sweden)

  • Anton Paulrud

    (Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), 90183 Umeå, Sweden and Economics Unit, Swedish Board of Fisheries, Gothenburg, Sweden)

Abstract

This paper presents results from a choice experiment (CE) study of anglers' valuations of the characteristics of an angling site at Storsjö-Kapell in the Swedish mountain region. In particular, the study presents value estimates of a dam removal and restoration to natural angling conditions. Values of catch, size and species are considered, as are values of bag limits. Also, value estimates are related to a trip frequency model, making it possible to predict visiting frequency under different scenarios. Thus, the model estimates provide a step towards developing dynamic fisheries management models, as the policies analysed may change the age structure of the stock. In addition to empirical results, the paper contributes a derivation of bounds on willingness to pay (WTP) based on the notion that new visitors may have smaller WTP for a change than those already selecting the site for angling.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Laitila & Anton Paulrud, 2008. "Anglers' Valuation of Water Regulation Dam Removal for the Restoration of Angling Conditions at Storsjö-Kapell," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(2), pages 283-296, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:14:y:2008:i:2:p:283-296
    DOI: 10.5367/000000008784460436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5367/000000008784460436
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5367/000000008784460436?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. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K. & McFadden, Daniel, 1995. "A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 1-30, January.
    4. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639, March.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    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. Rambonilaza, Tina & Kerouaz, Fathallah, 2023. "Valuing harvest regulation changes in recreational fisheries with a discrete choice experiment study: What can we learn from a synthetic review?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 40-54.
    2. Chadourne, Matthew H. & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Roberts, Roland K., 2011. "Ridge, Slope, and Hillside Protection Taskforce Projects in Knox County, Tennessee: Costs and Benefits of Reforestation of Target Areas," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103846, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.

    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. 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.
    2. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376, March.
    3. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    4. Sara Kaffashi & Mad Nasir Shamsudin & Alias Radam & Khalid Abdul Rahim & Mohd Rusli Yacob, 2013. "Non-users’ trade-off between natural scenery, water quality, ecological functions and biodiversity conservation: a way to preserve wetlands," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 251-260, June.
    5. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    9. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    10. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    11. Hye-Min Kim & In-Gyum Kim & Byunghwan Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Estimating the Economic Value of Improving the Asian Dust Aerosol Model in the Korean Household Sector: A Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-11, November.
    12. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, March.
    13. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    14. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    15. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    17. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    18. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    19. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Estifanos, Tafesse & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2018. "Protection of the Ethiopian Wolf: What are tourists willing to pay for?," Working Papers 272805, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and 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:toueco:v:14:y:2008:i:2:p:283-296. 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.