IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v38y2006i15p1725-1735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of contingent valuation method and random utility model estimates of the value of avoiding reductions in king mackerel bag limits

Author

Listed:
  • John Whitehead

Abstract

This paper estimates the value of king mackerel bag limit changes with both stated and revealed preference methods. The 1997 Marine Recreational Fishery Statistical Survey allows estimation of the value of avoiding bag limit reductions with the random utility model and the contingent valuation method. Using the contingent valuation method, the willingness to pay to avoid a one fish reduction in the bag limit is $2.45 per year. Using the random utility model, the willingness to pay to avoid a one fish reduction in the bag limit is $2.24 per trip and $7.71 for a two-month time period. Considering several methodological issues, the difference in willingness to pay between the stated and revealed preference methods is in the expected direction.

Suggested Citation

  • John Whitehead, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation method and random utility model estimates of the value of avoiding reductions in king mackerel bag limits," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(15), pages 1725-1735.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:38:y:2006:i:15:p:1725-1735
    DOI: 10.1080/00036840500427130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840500427130
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00036840500427130?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pei-Ing Wu & Chu-Li Huang, 2001. "Actual averting expenditure versus stated willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 277-283.
    2. Cameron, A Colin & Trivedi, Pravin K, 1986. "Econometric Models Based on Count Data: Comparisons and Applications of Some Estimators and Tests," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(1), pages 29-53, January.
    3. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    4. Carson, Richard & Hanemann, Michael & Steinberg, Dan, 1990. "A discrete choice contingent valuation estimate of the value of Kenai King salmon," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 53-68.
    5. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    6. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    7. Smith, V. Kerry & Liu, Jin Long & Palmquist, Raymond B., 1993. "Marine pollution and sport fishing quality : Using Poisson models as household production functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 111-116.
    8. George R. Parsons & Michael S. Needelman, 1992. "Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(4), pages 418-433.
    9. Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.
    10. James Thornton, 2000. "Physician choice of medical specialty: do economic incentives matter?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(11), pages 1419-1428.
    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. 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.
    2. repec:ags:aaea22:335687 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. John C. Whitehead & Christopher F. Dumas & Craig E. Landry & Jim Herstine, 2011. "Valuing Bag Limits in the North Carolina Charter Boat Fishery with Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Working Papers 11-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. John C. Whitehead, 2005. "Contingent Valuation and Random Utility Model Estimates of the Recreational Value of King Mackerel," Working Papers 05-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    3. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for recycling food waste in the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1096, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    6. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    7. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    9. Greiner, Romy & Rolfe, John, 2003. "Estimating consumer surplus and elasticity of demand of tourist visitation to a region in North Queensland using contingent valuation," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57881, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Maldonado, Jorge Higinio & Gonzalez-Vega, Claudio & Romero, Vivianne, 2003. "The Influence Of Microfinance On The Education Decisions Of Rural Households: Evidence From Bolivia," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22067, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Massimo Filippini & Giuliano Masiero & Diego Medici, 2012. "The demand for school meals: an analysis of stated choices by Swiss households," Quaderni della facoltà di Scienze economiche dell'Università di Lugano 1204, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
    12. Curtis, John & Stanley, Brian, 2015. "Water Quality and Recreational Angling Demand in Ireland," Papers WP521, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    13. Mette Termansen & Colin J McClean & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2004. "Recreational Site Choice Modelling Using High-Resolution Spatial Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(6), pages 1085-1099, June.
    14. Pattiz, Brian David, 2009. "Count regression models for recreation demand: an application to Clear Lake," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800002092, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Yongjie Ji & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2016. "Modeling Recreation Demand When the Access Point Is Unknown," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 860-880.
    16. Raju Mandal & Subrata Barman & M. P. Bezbaruah, 2014. "Economic Valuation for a better Conservation: A Case Study of Kaziranga National Park, India," Working Papers 1410, Sam Houston State University, Department of Economics and International Business.
    17. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley, 2008. "Rare Species Conservation on Irish Farmland: Benefits and Costs," Working Papers 0813, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    18. Frykblom, Peter, 1997. "Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 275-287, November.
    19. Thurow, Amy P. & Conner, J. Richard & Thurow, Thomas L. & Garriga, Matthew D., 2001. "A preliminary analysis of Texas ranchers' willingness to participate in a brush control cost-sharing program to improve off-site water yields," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 139-152, April.
    20. Anderson, Christopher M. & Das, Chhandita & Tyrrell, Timothy J., 2006. "Parking preferences among tourists in Newport, Rhode Island," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 334-353, May.

    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:taf:applec:v:38:y:2006:i:15:p:1725-1735. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.