Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:42:35.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economics of Outdoor Recreation Congestion: A Case study of Camping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

P. Geoffrey Allen  and
Thomas H. Stevens
P. Geoffrey Allen
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts
Thomas H. Stevens
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts
Get access

Abstract

Bias in estimating recreational values may result if congestion is ignored in the demand model specification. Theoretical and empirical considerations pertaining to recreation congestion are summarized. Empirical results for camping in Western Massachusetts are presented which demonstrate the potential degree of bias from demand model misspecification. The results indicate that recreational values may be strongly influenced by congestion effects and that camping areas with relatively low densities may have a higher economic value than high density areas with similar facilities.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 1979 , pp. 13 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Cicchetti, C. J. and Smith, V. K. “Congestion, Quality Deterioration, and Optimal Use: Wilderness Recreation in the Spanish Peaks Primitive Area.” Social Science Research. 2(1973): 15–30.Google Scholar
Deyak, T. A. and Smith, V. K. “Congestion and Participation in Outdoor Recreation: A Household Production Function Approach.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 5(1978): 63–80.Google Scholar
Heberlein, T. A. Density, Crowding, and Satisfaction: Sociological Studies for Determining Carrying Capacities. North Central Forestry Experiment Station, U.S. Dept, of Agriculture. St. Paul, Minnesota. General Technical Report NC-28. 1977:67–76.Google Scholar
McConnell, K. E. “Congestion and Willingness to Pay: A Study of Beach Use.” Land Economics. 53(1977): 185–195.Google Scholar
McConnell, K. E. and Duff, V. A. “Estimating Net Benefits of Recreation Under Conditions of Excess Demand.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2(1976): 224–230.Google Scholar
Oliveira, R. A. and Rausser, G. C. “Daily Fluctuations in Campground Use: An Econometric Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 59(1977): 283–293.Google Scholar
Randall, A. and Brookshire, D. S. Public Policy, Public Goods, and Contingent Valuation Mechanisms. University of Kentucky. Department of Agricultural Economics. Staff Paper 68. June 1978.Google Scholar
Ravenscraft, D. J. and Dweyer, J. F. Estimating the Influence of Congestion on the Willingness of Users to Pay for Recreation Areas. Forestry Research Report. University of Illinois. July 1978.Google Scholar
Smith, V. K. and Krutilla, J. V. “A Simulation Model for the Management of Low Density Recreation Areas.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1(1974): 187–201.Google Scholar
Wetzel, J. N. “Estimating the Benefits of Recreation Under Conditions of Congestion.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 4(1977): 239–246.Google Scholar