Substitution makes demand for recreation sites more elastic than that for recreation experiences. Assessment of site elasticity by direct and Clawson methods yielded elastic estimates empirically, whereas response to hypothetical increased costs of travel yielded inelastic demand for recreation experiences. It is important to use the appropriate figure in recreation evaluations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowesMDLoomisJB, 1980, “A note on the use of travel cost models with unequal zonal populations”Land Economics56465–470
2.
BurtORBrewerD, 1971, “Estimation of net social benefits from outdoor recreation”Econometrica39813–827
3.
ChristensenJB, 1985An Economic Approach to Assessing the Value of Recreation with Special Reference to Forest Areas unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Forestry and Wood Science, University College of North Wales, Bangor
4.
ChristensenJBHumphreysSKPriceC, 1985, “A revised Clawson method: One part-solution to multidimensional disaggregation problems in recreation evaluation”Journal of Environmental Management20333–346
5.
ChristensenJBPriceC, 1982, “Weighting observations in the derivation of recreation trip demand regressions—a comment on Bowes and Loomis”Land Economics58395–399
6.
ClawsonM, 1959, “Methods of measuring the demand for and value of outdoor recreation”, reprint 10, Resources for the Future, 1755 Massuchusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036
7.
ConnollyDSPriceC, undated, “The Clawson method and site substitution: Hypothesis and model” manuscript available from second author
HumphreysSK, 1981The Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents to Recreation Questionnaires in Gwydyr Forest, North Wales unpublished BSc dissertation, Department of Forestry and Wood Science, University College of North Wales, Bangor
10.
KnetschJL, 1977, “Displaced facilities and benefit calculations”Land Economics53123–129
11.
LucasRC, 1963, “Bias in estimating recreationists' length of stay from sample interviews”Journal of Forestry61912–914
PriceC, 1981, “Charging versus exclusion: Choice between recreation management tools”Environmental Management5161–175
14.
PriceC, 1983, “Evaluation of congestion and other social costs: Implications for systems of recreation parks”Sistemi Urbani5119–139
15.
TuckerJC, 1983An Estimation of the Use and Social Benefit from Urban Parks unpublished MSc thesis, Department of Forestry and Wood Science, University College of North Wales, Bangor
16.
WetzelJN, 1977, “Estimating the benefits of recreation under conditions of congestion”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management4239–246
