Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:43:21.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recreational Swimming Benefits of New Hampshire Lake Water Quality Policies: An Application of a Repeated Discrete Choice Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Michael S. Needelman  and
Mary Jo Kealy
Michael S. Needelman
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Mary Jo Kealy
Affiliation:
Economic Analysis and Research Branch, EPA
Get access

Abstract

Water pollution control policies generally direct sources (i.e., industry, agriculture) to reduce loadings of certain pollutants. Thus, evaluating the relative net recreation benefits of policies to improve water quality requires establishing a linkage between the sources, the resultant water quality degradation at the affected water bodies, and, ultimately, the effect on recreation behavior. This linkage is rarely present in the empirical literature which is, thus, deficient for water pollution control policy assessment purposes. In this paper, we estimate the relative recreational swimming benefits that may result from controlling point and nonpoint sources of pollution, respectively, in New Hampshire's lakes. We use a repeated discrete choice framework to model swimming behavior as a function of each lake's level of eutrophication, bacteria, and oil and grease. For each pollutant, at each affected lake, we identify which source is responsible for the pollution, and we conduct scenarios controlling each pollution source independently, and then, taken together. Seasonal benefit estimates are presented for each scenario. Coupled with information on the most cost effective means of generating the scenarios, these estimates provide a useful starting point for a quantitative assessment of the net recreation benefits of policies to improve the quality of New Hampshire lakes.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , April 1995 , pp. 78 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bockstael, N.E., McConnell, K.E., and Strand, I.E. “Benefits From Improvements In Chesapeake Bay Water Quality.” Benefit Analysis Using Indirect Or Imputed Market Methods, Vol. 2, Washington, DC, EPA, Agreement CR-811043-01-0, University of Maryland, 1988.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E., McConnell, K.E., and Strand, I.E. “A Random Utility Model for Sport Fishing: Some Preliminary Results for Florida.” Marine Resource Economics 6 (1989): 245–60.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E., Hanemann, W.M., and Kling, C.L. “Modeling Recreation Demand in a Multiple Site Framework.” Water Resources Research 23 No. 5(1987a): 951–60.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E., Hanemann, W.M., and Strand, I.E. “Measuring the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Using Recreation Demand Models.” Benefit Analysis Using Indirect or Imputed Methods, Vol. 2, Washington, DC, EPA Agreement CR-811043-01-0, University of Maryland, 1984.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E., Strand, I.E., and Hanemann, W.M. “Time and the Recreation Demand Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69(1987b): 213–32.Google Scholar
Brownstone, D., and Small, K.A. “Efficient Estimation of Nested Logit Models.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 7 No. 1 (1989): 67–74.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A. “The Determinants of Value for a Marine Estuarine Sportfishery: The Effects of Water Quality in Texas Bays,” Presented at the AERE Workshop on Marine and Sports Fisheries: Economic Valuation and Management, June 1988.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. III. “The Economics of Valuing Marine Recreation: A Review of the Empirical Evidence.” Economics Working Paper 93–102, Dept. of Economics, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME 04011, 1993.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael. “Applied Welfare Analysis With Qualitative Response Models.” California Agricultural Experiment Stations working paper No. 241, 1982.Google Scholar
Hoehn, J.P. 1991. “Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 No. 2 (1991): 239–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaoru, Y. “Valuing Marine Recreation by the Nested Random Utility Model: Functional Structure, Party Composition and Heterogeneity,” Unpublished, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1991.Google Scholar
Kaoru, Y., and Smith, V.K. “‘Black Mayonnaise’ and Marine Recreation: Methodological Issues in Valuing a Cleanup.” RFF discussion paper QE91-02 (Washington, DC, Resources for the Future), 1990.Google Scholar
Kaoru, Y., Smith, V.K., Liu, J.L. “Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources.” RFF discussion paper 94–04 (Washington, DC, Resources for Future), 1993.Google Scholar
Matulich, S.C., Workman, W.G., and Jubenville, A. “Recreation Economics: Taking Stock.” Land Economics 63 No. 3 (1987): 310–6.Google Scholar
McConnell, K.E., and Strand, I.E. “Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63 (1981): 153–6.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. “Modelling the Choice of Residential Location.” In Karlqvist, A. et al. eds., Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, pp. 75–96, 1978.Google Scholar
Morey, E.R. “Two RUMS Uncloaked: Nested-Logit Models of Site Choice and Nested-Logit Models of Participation and Site Choice,” Presented at the W-133 Meetings, Tucson Arizona, February, 1994.Google Scholar
Morey, E.R., Rowe, R.D., and Watson, M. “A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75 No. 3 (1993): 578–92.Google Scholar
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report, 1989.Google Scholar
New Hampshire Office of State Planning. Inventory of Outdoor Recreation Facilities New Hampshire 1981.Google Scholar
Parsons, G.R., and Kealy, M.J. “Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation.” Land Economics 68, No. 2 (1992): 93–106.Google Scholar
Parsons, G.R., and Needelman, M.S. “Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation.” Land Economics 68 No. 4 (1992): 418–33.Google Scholar
Shankle, S.A., Englin, J.E., Monroe, W.H., Beck, D.M., Casinelli, M.F., Saunders, H., and Grover, S.E. “Freshwater-Based Recreation in the Upper Northeast: Data Collection Documentation.” Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, 1990.Google Scholar
Smith, V.K., and Kaoru, Y. “Signals or Noise? Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit Estimates.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 No. 2 (1990): 419–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 1990 Census of Population and Housing.Google Scholar
Wegge, T.C., Carson, R.T., and Hanemann, W.M. “Site Quality and the Demand for Sport Fishing in Southcentral Alaska,” Presented at the Sportfishing Institute Symposium, Charleston, SC, March 14–15, 1988.Google Scholar