Applying contingent valuation in the design of fee hunting programs: Pheasant hunting in oregon revisited
- 1 September 1998
- journal article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Human Dimensions of Wildlife
- Vol. 3 (3) , 11-25
- https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209809359129
Abstract
The feasibility of user fees to support a public stocking program for pheasant hunting at the E. E. Wilson Wildlife Area in Western Oregon was initially evaluated by Adams et al. (1989) using the survey‐based contingent valuation (CV) method. Subsequent to the CV survey, an experimental “put and take”; stocking program was conducted at the site. Several fee levels were charged for hunting pheasants, and visitation records kept. Application of the CV method to investigate potential fee hunting at the E. E. Wilson is used as an illustrative case study. A unique opportunity exists to evaluate the performance of the original study and ask how CV may be used in designing and evaluating pricing policies for revenue capture in fee hunting programs.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuationEcological Economics, 1996
- Discrete/Continuous Contingent Valuation of Private Hunting Access in KansasJournal of Environmental Management, 1993
- Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive AppraisalLand Economics, 1993
- Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation SurveysLand Economics, 1991
- Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuationJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1990
- User Fees and Equity Issues in Public Hunting Expenditures: The Case of Ring-Necked Pheasant in OregonLand Economics, 1989
- A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regressionJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1988
- Estimating Willingness to Pay from Survey Data: An Alternative Pre-Test-Market Evaluation ProcedureJournal of Marketing Research, 1987