Comparison of the Value of Outdoor Recreation: A Case Study Applying Travel Cost Method and Contingent Valuation Method Yasushi SHOJI
J. JILA 64 (5), 2001
J. JILA 64 (5), 2001
2) Trice, A. H. and Wood, S. E.(1958): Measurement of Recreation Benefits, Land Economics, 34 (3), 195-207 4) Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Martin, K. M., Wright, J. L. (1996): Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods, Land Economics, 72 (1) 80-99 6) Willis, K. G, Garrod, G. D (1990): An Individual Travel-Cost Method of Evaluating Forest Recreation: Journal of Agricultural Economics, 41, 33-42 7) Turner, R. K., Pearce, D., Bateman, I. (1994): Environmental Economics; An Elementary Introduction: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 328pp 8) Clawson, El. and Knetsch, J. L.(1966): Economics of Outdoor Recreation: John Hopkins University Press, 328pp 9) Bockstael, N. E., McConnell, K. E. and Strand, I.(1991): Recreation, Pleasuring the demand for environmental quality: Contributions to Economic Analysis No.198: North-Holland, 227-270 11) Randall, A.(1994): A Difficulty with the Travel Cost method: Land Economics, 70 (1) 88-96 13) Freeman, III, A. M.(1993): The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Value; Theory and Methods: Resources for the Future, 516pp 14) Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T.(1989): Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Methods: Resources for the Future, 463pp 15) Greene, W. H.(2000): Econometric Analysis; fourth edition: Prentice Hall, 1004pp 16) Adamowicz, W. L., Fletcher, J. J., Graham-Tomasi, T.(1989): Functional Form and the Statistical Properties of Welfare Measures: American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, 414-421 17) Cesario, F. J.(1976): Value of Time and Recreational Benefit Studies: Land Economics, 52 (1) 32-41 18) Smith, V. K, Desvousges, W. H, Mc- Givney, M. P (1983): The Opportunity Cost of Travel Time in Recreation Demand Models: Land Economics, 59 (3) 259-278 21) Hanemann, W. M.(1984): Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete response: American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66 (3), 332-341 22) Hanemann, W., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B (1991): Statistical Efficiency of Double- Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73 (4), 1255-1262 23) Brown, W. G., Sorhus, C., Chou-Yang B., Richards, J. A.(1983): Using Individual Observations to Estimate Recreation Demand Functions: A Caution: American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65 (1), 154-157 24) Krinsky-, I. and Robb, A. L.(1986): On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(4), 715-719 25) Adamowicz, vi:., Louviere, J., Williams, M.(1994): Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities: Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271-292 Summary: In recent years environmental valuation method has been used as a method of managing Natural Parks in Japan. There are some methods, such as Travel Cost Method (TCM) and Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), that can evaluate the outdoor recreational value and the environmental values. To obtain the reliable valuation, it is important to compare the valuation of TCM with that of CVM. In this study I evaluated the value of outdoor recreation on Uryunuma Mire, Hokkaido, Japan by applying Zone Travel Cost Method (ZTCM), Individual Travel Cost Method (ITCM), and CVM. Then I compared and discussed these results. The estimate mean of ZTCM was 1214.9yen per visit, and that of ITCM was 1552.6yen per visit. The estimate median and mean of the Single-Bound Model CVM were 1255.7yen and 2260.7yen, and those of the Double-Bound Model CVM were 1192.8yen and 1687.7yen, respectively. Although these values cannot be compared among others directly, all these values relatively concentrated between 1,000 yen and 2,000 yen. J. JILA 64 (5), 2001