Updated outdoor recreation use values on national forests and other public lands

USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report PNW

Volumn , Issue 658, 2005, Pages 1-26

  Loomis, John ^a  

^a Department of Agriculture ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Benefit transfer; Consumer surplus; Recreation use values; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 29144506914     PISSN: 08874840     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. 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(2): 414-421.
2. Bergstrom, J.C.; Bowker, J.M.; Cordell, H.K.; Bhat, G.; English, D.B.K.; Teasley, R.J.; Villegas, P. 1996. Ecoregional estimates of the net economic values of outdoor recreational activities in the United States: individual model results. Final report submitted to Resource Program and Assessment Staff, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Athens, GA: Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group SE-4901, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia. 68 p.
3. Boyle, K.J.; Bergstrom, J.C. 1992. Benefit transfer studies: myths, pragmatism, and idealism. Water Resources Research. 28(3): 657-663.
4. Brookshire, D.S.; Neill, H.R. 1992. Benefit transfers: conceptual and empirical issues. Water Resources Research. 28(3): 651-655.
5. Brown, G.; Hay, M. 1987. Net economic recreation values for deer and waterfowl hunting and trout fishing. Work. Pap. No. 23.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Policy and Directive Management. 15 p.
6. Carson, R.T.; Wright, J.L.; Carson, N.; Alberini, A.; Flores, N. 1994. A bibliography of contingent valuation studies and papers. La Jolla, CA: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc. 142 p.
7. Desvousges, W.H.; Johnson, F.R.; Banzhaf, H.S. 1998. Environmental policy analysis with limited information: principles and applications of the transfer method. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar. 244 p.
8. Desvousges, W.H.; Naughton, M.C.; Parsons, G.R. 1992. Benefit transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resources Research. 28(3): 675-683.
9. Downing, M.; Ozuna, T., Jr. 1996. Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 30(3): 316-322.
10. Englin, J.; Shonkwiler, J.S. 1995. Estimating social welfare using count data models: an application to long-run recreation demand under conditions of endogenous stratification. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 77: 104-112.
11. Freeman, A.M., III. 1993. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 516 p.
12. Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. 1993. June 23, 1993. P.L. 103-62. Bill S20.
13. Hilger, J. 1998. A bivariate compound Poisson application: the welfare effects of forest fire on wilderness day hikers. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 119 p. M.S. thesis.
14. Kirchhoff, S.; Colby, B.G.; LaFrance, J.T. 1997. Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer: an empirical inquiry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 33(1): 75-93.
15. Loomis, J. 1992. The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resources Research: 28(3): 701-705.
16. Loomis, J.; Roach, B.; Ward, F.; Ready, R. 1995. Testing the transferability of recreation demand models across regions: a study of Corps of Engineers reservoirs. Water Resources Research. 31(3): 721-730.
17. Loomis, J.; Rosenberger, R.; Shrestha, R. 1999. Updated estimates of recreation values for the RPA program by assessment region and use of meta-analysis for recreation benefit transfer. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Final report RJVA 28-JV7-962. 36 p.
18. Loomis, J.B; Walsh, R.G. 1997. Recreation economic decisions: comparing benefits and costs. 2nd ed. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. 440 p.
19. MacNair, D. 1993. 1993 RPA recreation values database. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RPA Program. Washington, DC. Contract 43-4568-3-1191.
20. Markowski, M.; Unsworth, R.; Paterson, R.; Boyle, K. 1997. A database of sport fishing values. Cambridge MA: Industrial Economics, Inc.
21. Morey, E.R. 1994. What is consumer's surplus per day of use, when is it a constant independent of the number of days of use, and what does it tell us about consumer's surplus? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26(3): 257-270.
22. Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. 2000. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: in-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research. 36(4): 1097-1107.
23. Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. 2001. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: a technical report supporting the Forest Service strategic plan (2000 Revision). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.
24. Rosenthal, D.H.; Brown, T.C. 1985. Comparability of market prices and consumer surplus for resource allocation decisions. Journal of Forestry. 83(1): 105-109.
25. Rowe, R.; Morey, E.; Ross, A.; Shaw, W.D. 1985. Valuing marine recreational fishing on the Pacific coast. Rep. LJ-85-18C. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 189 p.
26. Shrestha, R.; Loomis, J. 2003. Meta-analytic benefit transfer of outdoor recreation economic values: testing out-of-sample convergent validity. Environmental and Resource Economics. 25: 79-100.
27. Sorg, C.F.; Loomis, J.B. 1984. Empirical estimates of amenity forest values: a comparative review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-107. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 23 p.
28. U.S. Water Resources Council. 1979. Procedures for evaluation of national economic development (NED) benefits and costs in water resources planning (Level C). Federal Register. 44(243): 72,892-72,976.
29. U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and environmental principles ad guidelines for water and related land resources implementation studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 137 p.
30. Walsh, R.G.; Johnson, D.M.; McKean, J.R. 1988. Review of outdoor recreation economic demand studies with nonmarket benefit estimates, 1968-1988. Tech. Rep. No. 54. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 131 p.
31. Walsh, R.G.; Johnson, D.M.; McKean, J.R. 1992. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation demand studies: 1968-1988. Water Resources Research. 28(3): 707-713.
32. Willig, R.D. 1976. Consumer surplus with out apology. American Economic Review. 66(4): 589-597.