Measuring Use Value from Recreation Participation: Reply

John Whitehead

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 1994, vol. 26, issue 1, 314-315

Abstract: In Whitehead (1992), I proposed a one-step method of estimating recreational use values. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify several points made in the original paper and correct some mathematical errors. The criticisms raise three major issues that should be addressed: the theoretical construct of use value, diminishing marginal utility, and empirical specification. Before I address the criticisms I would like to emphasize that the one-step, recreation-participation method is not viewed as superior to the two-step, travel-cost method or any of its extensions. The method is a means of obtaining order of magnitude use-value estimates if the travel-cost method can not be implemented. To re-state one of the conclusions: “The one-step method is a useful, low-cost substitute for two-step travel cost models when research budgets are limited (Whitehead, 1992 p. 118).” This notion was underemphasized in the original paper.

Date: 1994
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
Journal Article: MEASURING USE VALUE FROM RECREATION PARTICIPATION: REPLY (1994)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:26:y:1994:i:01:p:314-315_01

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().