Article thumbnail

Valuing Access to our Public Lands: A Unique Public Good Pricing Experiment

By David Aadland, Bistra Anatchkova, Burke Grandjean, Jason F. Shogren, Benjamin Simon and Patricia A. Taylor

Abstract

We report the findings of a unique nation-wide experiment to price access to our public lands. In 2004, the U.S. Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act mandated the creation of a new annual pass to cover all federal recreation sites that charge an entrance or access fee. Our task was to assist federal policymakers in determining an appropriate price for this new pass. Toward that end, we administered a contingent valuation phone survey to over 3700 households to estimate households willingness to pay (WTP) for the new pass at a variety of different prices. Our innovative experimental design allows us to estimate the degree of hypothetical bias in the sample and calibrate our WTP estimates to reflect actual purchasing decisions. In a sample of the general U.S. population most of whom have little experience with similar federal passes respondents tend to greatly exaggerate their WTP for the pass when contrasted with previous pass sales. A sample of recent pass purchasers, however, exhibits little bias. This confirms recent research showing that market experience can be an effective means to mitigate hypothetical bias.Land Economics/Use,

OAI identifier:
Downloaded from http://purl.umn.edu/9789

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1999). (eds). Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries.
  2. (2005). A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation." Environmental and Resource Economics.
  3. (2003). A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation.
  4. (2006). Analysis to Assist with Pricing the New Recreation Pass: Task 5, The Survey.”
  5. (1998). Calibration of the Differences between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment."
  6. (2003). Contingent valuation in practice,”
  7. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than none?”
  8. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data.
  9. (2003). Econometric Analysis. 5 th Edition.
  10. (1987). Efficient estimation methods for 'close-ended' contingent valuation surveys.”
  11. (1994). Environmental valuation in developing countries: The recreational value of wildlife viewing.”
  12. (1995). Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys:
  13. (2000). Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.
  14. (1994). Investment under Uncertainty,
  15. (1993). Matching grants and public goods: A closed-ended contingent valuation experiment,”
  16. (2005). Passing go: Recreation fees and the use of passes to cover entry fees ..Washington DC: National Park Service.
  17. (2003). Recreation demand models.”
  18. (1996). Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning.
  19. (1991). Statistical Efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation,
  20. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.
  21. (2002). Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation.
  22. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses.”
  23. (2001). What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis.” Environmental and Resource
  24. (2003). Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias.”