Do Any Differences in Estimated Recreation Benefits from Probability and Opt-in Samples Vary with Valuation Method?

John C. Whitehead, Tim Haab, Sherry L. Larkin, John B. Loomis, Sergio Alvarez and Andrew Ropicki

No 26-09, Working Papers from Department of Economics, Appalachian State University

Abstract: Estimating recreation benefits from environmental events or regulatory actions often requires household survey data. Probability-based sampling is preferred but costly; opt-in panels cost less but their welfare estimates may be biased. This paper compares probability-based and opt-in samples using travel cost method (TCM) and contingent valuation method (CVM) estimates of recreation losses from the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill in northwest Florida. Opt-in estimates exceed probability-based estimates by 26% under TCM and by 20% to 32% under CVM. Restricting CVM "yes" responses to those respondents most certain they would pay narrows the gap, but it remains larger than the TCM gap. Key Words: contingent valuation method, opt-in panel data, probability-based panel data, travel cost method.

JEL-codes: Q51 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp2609.pdf (application/pdf)

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:apl:wpaper:26-09

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from Department of Economics, Appalachian State University Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by O. Ashton Morgan ().