Abstract
The contingent valuation method (CVM) and travel cost method (TCM), recommended by the federal guidelines, are applied to the problem of estimating recreational benefits in a case study of rivers in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The primary purpose is to assess the validity of the behavioral intentions reported in CVM surveys compared to actual behavior‐based TCM analysis. Comparison of the two approaches has been limited by potential measurement problems including variation in the valuation question and model specification. This study evaluates CVM questions asking for both trip and annual values, versus TCM models of the number of trips per participant with and without adjustment for the probability of participation. Based on this case study, we cannot reject the hypothesis that recreation benefits estimated by the alternative methods are equal. Apparently, the ordinary CVM and individual TCM can provide as useful an approximation of the recreational economic welfare effects of river protection as the alternative procedures.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
