Whitehead, John C.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Measuring Use Value from Recreation
Participation: Reply
John C. Whitehead*
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.
The Theoretical Construct of Use Value
As stated in the comment, the verbal and
mathematical definitions of use value in Whitehead
(1992) do not match. The verbal definition
describes willingness to pay to avoid a price
increase with the reference level of utility evaluated
at the current price. The mathematical definition
describes a willingness to pay to gain a price
decrease where the utility level associated with the
current price is the reference level of utility.
Considering the implicit property rights associated
with access, the appropriate welfare measure should
be willingness to pay to avoid a price increase (the
verbal definition) and the reference level of utility
in equation (1) of Whitehead (1992) should be
U(x,=o,y) = ii.‘
Diminishing Marginal Utility
As recreation trips are made over a fixed
time horizon, diminishing marginal utility will lead
to reductions in the marginal value of each trip.
Considering a fixed time horizon, the horizontal axis
in English and Bowker’s Figure 1 should be labeled
x,/t where t is the time horizon. The implicit
assumption made in the comment is that t is equal
to one year. When using the one-step method the
implicit assumption is that the time horizon over
which recreation decisions are made is one day.
Both assumptions are fairly arbitrary. Our common
mistake is that we do not make our assumptions
explicit.
The type of trips that are represented in the
Kentucky wetlands recreation sample include
fishing, hunting, and nonconsumptive uses of the
wetlands. The true time horizon may be a few days
or a single day for a quantity rationed outdoor
recreation activity, such as deer hunting, or an entire
year for an activity such as bass fishing. For
recreational activities that have several seasons over
the year, participants may face the reservation price
each season and diminishing marginal utility will set
in over the course of the season. Fundamental] y,
the appropriate time horizon is an institutional or
empirical matter.
*John C. Whitehead, Department of Economics, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
J. Agr, andAppliedEcon.26 (1), July, 1994: 314-315
Copyright 1993 Southern Agricultural Economics Association
27858J. Agr, and Applied Econ., July, 1994
Empirical Specification
Related to the problem of diminishing
marginal utility, English and Bowker’s attempt to
improve the empirical specification of the Iogit
model which they feel is seriously flawed, In order
to consider these recommendations suppose you
wish to estimate a Iogit model of recreation
participation such as rc(.x> O) = f(p,y) where n is
the probability, .x is the number of recreation trips,
p is the on-site use price (round trip travel and time
costs), and y is income. This is the type of model
estimated in Whitehead (1992).
English and Bowker’s proposals include
estimating the participation model including a
(dummy) variable for multiple trips to the site and
replacing the price by the multiplicative term (p.x).
Both of these proposals would generate misleading
results since the proposed variables (1) are
endogenous consumer choice variables and (2) have
no variation for nonusers of the resource. Even if
the latter proposed specification were
econometrically soundz, it would yield positive
coefficients for the px variable and the value of
recreation [SSVI in English and Bowker’s equation
(1)] would be negative for users of the resource and
positive for nonusers of the resource.
The other proposals deserve some attention.
First, estimate the logit model separately for each
trip class generating n logit models and n use value
per trip estimates, where n is the number of trip
classes considered. This proposal will lead to lower
use value per trip estimates for trips greater than
References
315
one as required by theory if the time horizon is
longer than one day. The other legitimate proposal
is to include a separate observation for each trip
taken by respondents. However, this is the premise
behind the random utility model of recreation
decisions which requires more computation effort
than the one-step method (this model also implicitly
assumes that the time horizon is one day).
Other Considerations
Ultimately, the accuracy of the one-step
method and the appropriateness of its implicit
assumptions are empirical questions. In on-going
research I am testing the validity and reliability of
the one-step method in comparison with the two-
step, travel-cost method. Preliminary results suggest
that the two-step travel-cost method, estimated using
a truncated regression model, generates use value
per trip estimates that are substantially greater than
the use value per trip estimates from the one-step
method. Using Tobit or Heckman self-selection
regressions, the use value per trip estimates are very
similar.
In conclusion, the one-step method can
provide order of magnitude use value estimates for
researchers who have data collection constraints or
limited computer time when applied to recreation
sites that have high participation rates. The method
may be most useful, as suggested by an original
referee, in application with secondary or published
data sources which can be constructed from hunting
and fishing licenses or visitor registration lists.
English, Donald B. K. and J. M. Bowker, “Measuring Use Value from Recreation Participation: Comment”,
J. Agr. and Applied Econ,, (1994):311-313.
Greene, William H,, Econometric Analysis, 2nd Edition, New York: Macmillan, 1993,
Whitehead, John C., “Measuring Use Value from Recreation Participation,” S. J. Agr. Econ., (1992): 113-
119.
Endnotes
1. This reply also allows an errata to the original paper which should be followed to appropriately estimate
use values. Equation (10) of Whitehead (1992) should appear with a negative sign in front of the numerator
of the right hand side expression,
2. See Greene (1993, p, 651) for a short discussion of the problems that this variable could create.

MEASURING USE VALUE FROM RECREATION PARTICIPATION: REPLY

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics