Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 79–100 | Cite as

Meta-Analytic Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Economic Values: Testing Out-of-Sample Convergent Validity

  • Ram K. Shrestha
  • John B. Loomis

Abstract

A benefit transfer approach to recreationeconomic valuation using meta-analysis isexamined. Since the meta- regression modeltakes into account some of the study specificeffects on willingness to pay (WTP) estimates,benefit transfer using meta-analysis couldyield a valid WTP estimate of unstudiedrecreation resources. The convergent validityof the meta-analytic benefit transfer is testedusing out-of-sample original studies from theU.S. The analyses are performed usingpercentage difference, paired t-test,regression and correlation tests. The testsreveal mixed results on convergence betweenestimated WTP using meta-analytic benefittransfer function (BTF) and out-of-sampleoriginal WTP values. There is a fairly highpercentage difference between the estimated andoriginal WTP values (80–88%), and the meandifferences are statistically significant asshown by paired t-tests. However, correlationand regression results consistently showsignificant positive relationships betweennational BTF estimated and original WTP valuesindicating some level of convergence. Theresults show that the national BTF outperformthe regional BTF indicating a potential of thenational BTF for recreation benefit transferwhen a “first best” primary valuation study isnot affordable.

benefit transfer function meta-analysis outdoor recreation out-of-sample test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AEI, UI and NA (1998), Outdoor Recreation use and Value on Lower Snake River Reservoirs. Report prepared for the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Agricultural Enterprise Inc. (AEI), University of Idaho (UI) and Normandean Associates (NA), Walla Walla, Washington.Google Scholar
  2. Bateman, I. and A. Jones. Forthcoming. Contrasting Conventional with Multi-Level Modeling Approaches to Meta-Analysis: Expectation Consistency in UK Woodland Recreation Values. Forthcoming, Land Economics.Google Scholar
  3. Bergland, O., K. Magnussen and S. Navrud (1995), Benefit Transfer: Testing for Accuracy and Reliability. Discussion Paper #D-03/1995, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway.Google Scholar
  4. Bijmolt, T.H.A. and R.G.M. Pieters (2001), ‘Meta-Analysis in Marketing when Studies Contain Multiple Measurements’, Marketing Letters 12(2), 157-169.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, K. and J. Bergstrom (1992), ‘Benefit Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism, and Idealism’, Water Resource Research 28(3), 657-663.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, K., G. Poe and J. Bergstrom (1994), ‘What DoWe Know about Groundwater Values? Preliminary Implications from a Meta Analysis of Contingent-Valuation Studies’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 1055-1061.Google Scholar
  7. Boyle, K.J., B. Roach, D.G. Waddington, J. Clark and B. Lange (1998), 1996 Net Economic Values for Bass, Trout and Walleye Fishing, Deer, Elk and Moose Hunting, and Wildlife Watching-Addendum to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  8. Brookshire, D.S. and H.R. Neill (1992), ‘Benefit Transfer: Conceptual and Empirical Issues’, Water Resources Research 28(3), 651-655.Google Scholar
  9. Brouwer R. and F.A. Spaninks (1999), ‘The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing’, Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 95-117.Google Scholar
  10. Brouwer, R., I.H. Langford, I.J. Bateman and R.K. Turner (1999), ‘A Meta-Analysis of Wetland Contingent Valuation Studies’, Regional Environmental Change 1(1), 47-57.Google Scholar
  11. Carson, R.T., J. Wright, A. Alberini, N. Carson and N. Flores (1994), A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers. La Jolla, CA, NRDA, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin and J.L.Wright (1996), ‘Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-public Goods’, Land Economics 72(1), 80-99.Google Scholar
  13. Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores and N.F. Meade (2001), ‘Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence’, Environment and Resource Economics 19, 173-210.Google Scholar
  14. Chakraborty, K. and J.E. Keith (2000), ‘Estimating the Recreation Demand and Economic Value of Mountain Biking in Moab, Utah: An Application of Count Data Models’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(4), 461-469.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, J.C. (2000), ‘Nonparametric and Semi-Nonparametric Recreational Demand Analysis’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82, 451-462.Google Scholar
  16. Coupal, R.H., C. Bastian, J. May, and D.T. Taylor (1998), The Economic Benefits of Snowmobiling in Wyoming: A Travel Cost Approach with Market Segmentation. An unpublished paper, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.Google Scholar
  17. Creel, M. and J. Loomis (1991), ‘Confidence Intervals for Welfare Measures with Application to a Problem of Truncated Counts’, Review of Economics and Statistics 63(2), 370-373.Google Scholar
  18. Desvousges, W.H., M.C. Naughton and G.R. Parsons (1992), ‘Benefit Transfer: Conceptual Problems in EstimatingWater Quality Benefits Using Existing Studies’, Water Resource Research 28, 675-683.Google Scholar
  19. Desvousges, W.H., F.R. Johnson, and H.S. Banzhaf (1998), Environmental Policy Analysis With Limited Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Downing, M. and T. Jr. Ozuna (1996), ‘Testing the Reliability of the Benefit Function Transfer Approach’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 316-322.Google Scholar
  21. Feather, P. and D. Hellerstein (1997), ‘Calibrating Benefit Function Transfer to Assess the Conservation Reserve Program’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 151-162.Google Scholar
  22. Freeman, A.M. (1984), ‘On the Tactics of Benefit Estimates Under Executive Order 12291’, in V.K. Smith, ed., Environmental Policy Under Regean's Executive Order: Role of Benefit Cost Analysis. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, pp. 167-186.Google Scholar
  23. Glass, G.V. (1976), ‘Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research’, Educational Researcher 5, 3-8.Google Scholar
  24. Glass, G.V., B. McGraw and M.S. Smith (1981), Meta-Analysis in Social Research. Sage Publications Inc., California & London.Google Scholar
  25. Greene, W.H. (1997), Econometric Analysis (Third Edition). Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  26. Hackett, S.C. (1999), The Recreational Economic Benefits from Wilderness Visitation in the Eastern Trinity Alps. An unpublished paper, School of Business and Economics, California State University-Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Hanemann, W.M. (1991), ‘Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ’, The American Economic Review 81(3), 635-647.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen, L., P. Feather and D. Shank (1999), ‘Valuation of Agriculture's Multi-site Environmental Impacts: An Application of Pheasant Hunting’, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review (October), 199-207.Google Scholar
  29. Hilger, J.R. (1998), A Bivariate Compound Poisson Application: The Welfare Effects of Forest Fire on Wilderness Day-Hikers. An unpublished thesis, Resource and Applied Economics, University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  30. Horowitz, J.L. and J.J. Louviere (1993), ‘Testing Predicted Choices Against Observations in Probabilistic Discrete Choice Models’, Marketing Science 12(3), 270-279.Google Scholar
  31. Kirchhoff, S., B.G. Colby and J.R. LaFrance (1997), ‘Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 75-93.Google Scholar
  32. Krupnick, A.J. (1993), ‘Benefit Transfer and Environmental Improvements’, Resources 110(Winter), 1-6.Google Scholar
  33. Leeworthy, V.R. and J.M. Bowker (1997), Nonmarket Economic User Values of the Florida Keys/Key West. The Study Conducted in Conjunction with US Forest Service, The University of Georgia, The Nature Conservancy, NOAA, and Monroe County Tourism Development Council.Google Scholar
  34. Loomis, J.B. (1992), ‘The Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefit Transfer: Benefit Function Transfer’, Water Resources Research 28, 701-705.Google Scholar
  35. Loomis, J.B. (2001), Final Snake River Contingency Value Methodology Study Report. The Report Submitted to the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming.Google Scholar
  36. Loomis, J. and D. White (1996), ‘Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-analysis’, Ecological Economics 18, 197-206.Google Scholar
  37. Loomis, J.B. and R.G. Walsh (1997), Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs (Second Edition). Venture Publishing, Inc., Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  38. Loomis, J., B. Roach, F. Ward and R. Ready (1995), ‘Testing the Transferability of Recreation Demand Models Across Regions: A Study of Corps of Engineers Reservoirs’, Water Resources Research 31, 721-730.Google Scholar
  39. Loomis, J.B., R. Rosenberger and R.K. Shrestha (1999), Updated Estimates of Recreation Values for the RPA Program by Assessment Region and Use of Meta-Analysis for Recreation Benefit Transfer. Final Report for the USDA Forest Service, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.Google Scholar
  40. Loomis, J.B., S. Yorizane and D. Larson (2000), ‘Testing Significance of Multi-Destination and Multi-Purpose Trip Effects in a Travel Cost Method Demand Model for Whale Watching Trips’, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 29(2), 183-191.Google Scholar
  41. MacNair, D. (1993), 1993 RPA Recreation Values Database. USDA Forest Service, RPA Program, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  42. Markowski, M., R. Unsworth, R. Paterson and K. Boyle (1997), A Database of Sport Fishing Values. Industrial Economics Inc. prepared for the Economics Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  43. McConnell, K.E. (1992), ‘Model Building and Judgment: Implication for Benefit Transfer With Travel Cost Models’, Water Resources Research 28(3), 695-700.Google Scholar
  44. Moeltner, K. (1998), Demand for Hiking In the Alpine Lakes Wilderness-A Travel Cost Analysis. An unpublished paper, Dept. of Economics, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  45. Piper, S. (1998), ‘Modeling Recreation Decisions and Estimating the Benefits on North Dakota River Recreation’, Rivers 6, 251-258.Google Scholar
  46. Roach, B., K. Boyle, J. Bergstrom and R. Reiling (1999), ‘The Effect of Instream Flows on Whitewater Visitation and Consumer Surplus: A Contingent Valuation Application to the Dean River, Maine’, Rivers 7, 11-20.Google Scholar
  47. Rosenberger R. and J. Loomis (2000), ‘Panel Stratification of Meta-Analysis of Economic Studies: An Investigation of Its Effects in the Recreation Valuation Literature’, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(3), 459-470.Google Scholar
  48. Sirkin, R.M. (1995), Statistics for the Social Sciences. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, V.K. (1992), ‘On Separating Defensible Benefit Transfer From “Smoke and Mirrors”’, Water Resources Research 28(3), 685-694.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, V.K. and J. Huang (1995), ‘Can Markets Value Air Quality? A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Property Value Models’, Journal of Political Economy 103, 209-227.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, V.K. and Y. Kaoru (1990), ‘Signals or Noise?: Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit Estimates’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 419-433.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, V.K. and L. Osborne (1996), ‘Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a Scope Test?: A Meta-analysis’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 287-301.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, V.K., G.V. Houtven and S.K. Pattanayak (2002), ‘Benefit Transfer via Preference Calibration: Prudential Algebra for Policy’, Land Economics 78(1), 132-152.Google Scholar
  54. Stanley, T.D. (2001). ‘Wheat from Chaff: Meta-Analysis as Quantitative Literature Review’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(3), 131-150.Google Scholar
  55. Sturtevant, L.A., F.R. Johnson and W.H. Desvousges (1998), A Meta-analysis of Recreational Fishing, Unpublished Manuscript. Triangle Economic Research, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
  56. U.S. Water Resources Council (1983), Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  57. U.S. Water Resources Council (1979), ‘Procedures for Evaluation of National Economic Development (NED) Benefits and Costs in Water Resources Planning (Level C)’, Federal Register 44(243), 72892-72976.Google Scholar
  58. U.S.Water Resources Council (1973), ‘Principles, Standards, and Procedures for Water and Related Land Resource Planning’, Federal Register 38(174), Part III.Google Scholar
  59. Valdes, S. (1995), Non-market Valuation of Recreational Resources: Testing Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation Studies and an Explanation of Benefit Transfer Procedures with Discrete Choice Models. An unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  60. Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson and J.R. McKean (1989), ‘Issues in Nonmarket Valuation and Policy Application: A Retrospective Glance’, Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 14, 78-188.Google Scholar
  61. Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson and J.R. McKean (1992), ‘Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Demand Studies: 1968-1988’, Water Resources Research 28, 707-713.Google Scholar
  62. Willig, R.D (1976), ‘Consumer Surplus Without Apology’, The American Economic Review 66(4), 589-597.Google Scholar
  63. Woodward, R.T. and Y.S. Wui (2000), ‘The Economic Value of Wetland Services: A Meta-analysis’, Ecological Economics 37, 257-270.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ram K. Shrestha
    • 1
  • John B. Loomis
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Forest Resources and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsColorado State UniversityFort CollinsU.S.A

Personalised recommendations