A comparison of contingent valuation method and random utility model estimates of the value of avoiding reductions in king mackerel bag limits

John Whitehead

Applied Economics, 2006, vol. 38, issue 15, 1725-1735

Abstract: This paper estimates the value of king mackerel bag limit changes with both stated and revealed preference methods. The 1997 Marine Recreational Fishery Statistical Survey allows estimation of the value of avoiding bag limit reductions with the random utility model and the contingent valuation method. Using the contingent valuation method, the willingness to pay to avoid a one fish reduction in the bag limit is $2.45 per year. Using the random utility model, the willingness to pay to avoid a one fish reduction in the bag limit is $2.24 per trip and $7.71 for a two-month time period. Considering several methodological issues, the difference in willingness to pay between the stated and revealed preference methods is in the expected direction.

Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840500427130 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
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:taf:applec:v:38:y:2006:i:15:p:1725-1735

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAEC20

DOI: 10.1080/00036840500427130

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Economics is currently edited by Anita Phillips

More articles in Applied Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().