No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Site Characteristics and Revealed Preferences for Outdoor Recreation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 May 2017
Extract
Demand measurement for outdoor recreation has developed on a course that reflects trends in both theoretical economics and recreation policy. The early insights of Hotelling and Clawson and Knetsch express a dominant concern with estimating the demand for a single recreation site and the economic value of publicly provided, new recreation sites. Their theoretical framework was consistent with the emerging public goods theory which viewed recreation sites as homogeneous public goods demanded by homothetic consumers. In light of the emphasis on expanding leisure opportunities and public acquisition of recreational parkland in the national recreation policy of this period, their analysis was timely and an important benchmark for further refinements in measuring the economic value of recreation sites (Burt and Brewer; Cicchetti, Fisher and Smith).
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , April 1985 , pp. 14 - 17
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1985 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association
References
Burt, Oscar R. and Brewer, D. “Estimation of Net Social Benefits from Outdoor Recreation.” Econometrica 39 (1971):831–37.Google Scholar
Cesario, Frank and Knetsch, Jack. “The Time-Bias in Recreation Benefit Estimates.” Water Resources Research 6 (1970):700–704.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, C. J., Fisher, A. C. and Smith, V. K. “An Econometric Evaluation of a Generalized Consumer Surplus Measure: The Mineral King Controversy.” Econometrica 44 (1976):1259–76.Google Scholar
Clawson, Marion and Knetsch, Jack. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: Resources for the Future, 1966.Google Scholar
Desvousges, William, Smith, V. K. and McGivney, M. “A Comparison of Alternative Approaches for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvement.” Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency, March, 1983.Google Scholar
Greig, Peter J. “Recreation Evaluation Using a Characteristics Theory of Consumer Behavior.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65 (1983):90–97.Google Scholar
Hof, John G. and King, David A. “On the Necessity of Simultaneous Recreation Demand Equation Estimation.” Land Economics 58 (1982):547–552.Google Scholar
Hueth, Daryl and Strong, Elizabeth. “A Critical Review of the Travel Cost, Hedonic Travel Cost, and Household Production Models for Measurement of Quality Changes in Recreational Experiences.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 13 (1984):181–186.Google Scholar
McConnell, Kenneth E. and Bockstael, Nancy E. “Aggregation in Recreation Economics: Issues in Estimation and Benefit Measurement.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 13 (1984):187–198.Google Scholar
McConnell, Kenneth and Phipps, T. T. “Exploring the Identification Problem in Hedonic Markets.” (draft) June, 1984.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, Robert and Brown, Gardner M. Jr. “Revealed Preference Approaches to Valuing Outdoor Recreation.” Natural Resources Journal 23 (1983):607–618.Google Scholar
Morey, Edward R. “The Demand for Site Specific Recreational Activities: A Characteristics Approach.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8 (1981):345–371.Google Scholar
Quigley, John M. “Nonlinear Budget Constraints and Consumer Demand: An Application to Public Programs for Residential Housing,” Journal of Urban Economics 12 (1982):177–201.Google Scholar
Stoll, John R. “A Characteristics Approach to Recreation Demand.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 15 (1983).Google Scholar
Vaughan, William J. and Russell, Clifford S. “Valuing a Fishing Day: An Application of a Systematic Varying Parameter Model.” Land Economics 58 (1982):450–463.Google Scholar