Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:03:05.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating Recreation Values Associated With Land Use Changes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Wesley N. Musser  and
Rod F. Ziemer
Wesley N. Musser
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia
Rod F. Ziemer
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Achieving optimal use of wildlife resources is a classic problem in natural resource economics. Ciriacy-Wantrup argued that wildlife resources are a case of a fugitive resource for which private property rights cannot easily be defined and therefore government policy may be necessary to obtain optimal use [5, pp. 141–145]. Land use planning is one area of government policy in which limited attention has been given to management of wildlife resources. One reason for the neglect may be the lack of emphasis on estimating the value of wildlife recreation experiences associated with particular land uses. An exception is the work of Martin, Tinney, and Gum [16] who did not look at marginal land use changes but did consider the termination of all cattle ranching in Arizona and its effect on recreational and agricultural economic surpluses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , December 1979 , pp. 97 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1979

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

[1]Arrow, Kenneth J. “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing,” Review of Economic Studies, Volume 29, pp. 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Batie, S. S., Jensen, R. B., and Hogue, G. L.. “A Lancasterian Approach for Specifying Derived Demands for Recreational Activities,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 8, July 1976, pp. 101–107.Google Scholar
[3]Becker, Gary S.Economic Theory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
[4]Cicchetti, Charles J., Seneca, Joseph J., and Davidson, Paul. The Demand and Supply of Outdoor Recreation. Rutgers, New Jersey: Bureau of Economic Research, 1969.Google Scholar
[5]Ciriacy-Wentrup, S. V.Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies, revised edition, California Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963.Google Scholar
[6]Clawson, Marion and Knetsch, J. L.. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966.Google Scholar
[7]Davis, Robert K. and Seneca, Joseph J.. “Model for Supply and Demand Analysis in State Fish and Game Planning,” Thirty-Seventh North American Wildlife Conference, 1972, pp. 234–245.Google Scholar
[8]Dwyer, John F. and Bowes, Michael D.. “Concepts of Value for Marine Recreational Fishing,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 60, December 1978, pp. 1008–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Environmental Research Group. A Guide to the Data Collecting and Processing System. Economic Evaluation of Wildlife and Wildlife Oriented Resources in the Southeastern U.S. Atlanta: Georgia State University, 1972.Google Scholar
[10]Georgia State Game and Fish Commission. 1970 Georgia Wildlife Habitat and Resource Inventory, Atlanta, 1970.Google Scholar
[11]Gum, Russell L. and Martin, William E.. “Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and Value of Rural Outdoor Recreation,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 57, November 1975, pp. 558–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Hagarty, Thomas F. and Mackay, Robert J.. “Some Implications of the New Theory of Consumer Behavior for Interpreting Estimated Demand Elasticities,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 57, May 1975, pp. 340–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Hicks, J. R.Value and Capital, second edition. London: Oxford University Press, 1946.Google Scholar
[14]Kalter, Robert J. and Gosse, Lois E.. “Recreation Demand Functions and the Identification Problem,” Journal of Leisure Research, Volume 2, Winter 1970, pp. 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Maler, Karl-Goran. Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry. Baltimore: Resources for the Future, Inc., Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
[16]Martin, William E., Craig Tinney, J., and Gum, Russell L.. “A Welfare Economic Analysis of the Potential Competition Between Hunting and Cattle Ranching,” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 3, December 1978, pp. 87–97.Google Scholar
[17]McConnell, Kenneth E. “Congestion and Willingness to Pay: A Study of Beach Use,” Land Economics, Volume 53, May 1977, pp. 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Oliveira, Ronald A. and Rausser, Gordon C.. “Daily Fluctuations in Campground Use,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 59, May 1977, pp. 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Shulstad, Robert N. and Stoevener, Herbert H.. “The Effects of Mercury Contamination in Pheasants on the Value of Pheasant Hunting in Oregon,” Land Economics, Volume 54, February 1978, pp. 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Stevens, Joe B. “Recreation Benefits from Water Pollution Control,” Water Resources Research Volume 2, 1966, pp. 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]White, Fred C.et al. The Environmental and Economic Impact of Placing Soil Bank, Marginal, and Submarginal Land in Crop Production in Georgia, Final Report for Grant No. R804510 with the Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia, in preparation.Google Scholar
[22]Ziemer, Rod F. and Musser, Wesley N.. The Demand for and Value of Wildlife Recreation in Georgia, Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin No. 220, June 1978.Google Scholar