240
tential costs savings from perfonning a benefits
transfer instead of a primary valuation study. However, in many situations the choice of method is not
always obvious. In general, revealed preference
methods, such as travel cost models, have the advantage that they are often less expensive to carry
out than are stated preference methods.
16.6 Examples
Two examples of nonmarket valuation studies with
the policy scenarios that they were intended to infonn are given next. Two common themes in these
examples are the importance of the policy context
of the valuation problem and the importance of a
well-planned experimental design. The policy context defines the precise good that is to be valued
and the units and ranges of use that are relevant for
policy alternatives. Planning requires time in the
initial phases. However, as these examples illustrate, attention to design enhances the reliability
and validity of estimates.
The first example is the measurement of the
value of wilderness canoeing in Ontario Provincial
Parks. The estimates were expected to provide infonnation for a number of policy decisions. These
potential policy actions included increasing the
quotas on wilderness canoe routes to increase revenues from this activity as a way to address budget shortfalls, increasing the backcountry user fees,
and increasing the area of wilderness-zoned areas
in Ontario Parks. The second example is a study
that measured existence values of creating new national parks in extremely remote regions. These
parks would not be developed for recreation or visitation, but instead for ecosystem preservation. The
interesting feature of this example is that a total of
ten parks is required to fulfill the park system goal,
whereas four were specifically proposed in the policy proposal. The study was designed to measure
the value of the four parks relative to the goal of
creating ten parks. The results indicate that the marginal value of a new park decreased as more parks
were added to the system. This would be consistent with a perception among the public that as
more and more areas were devoted to preservation,
at the margin, additional protected areas would be
less scarce than other potential uses of the same financial and capital public resources.
16.6.1 Example 1: Valuation of
Wilderness Canoeing in Ontario
In 1993, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
was faced with large budget cuts and increasing deMeasuring Ecosystem Values
mand by recreational users of provincial lands. One
method discussed to meet an increasing shortfall
was the relaxation of daily quotas to wilderness areas. It seemed reasonable that, if there was increasing demand, allowing more users per unit area
would generate more user fees per unit area. The
possibility of increasing the fees while maintaining
or even further restricting quotas was considered to
be politically difficult. One problem with this view
was that the quest for increased operating revenues
obscures the true economic value of the recreational resources. Past work on the effects of congestion on the value of recreational experiences
suggests that by relaxing quotas the value per recreational user day may be expected to decline. Thus
consumer surplus per trip day, or the value of individual benefits over and above the expenses for
a trip, may decline. So, while more user days are
experienced, the overall value per user day declines. It is possible that greater overall value might
be achieved by increasing user fees per user day
and maintaining or even further restricting day use
quotas for wilderness areas.
A second question relates to the reliability of the
estimated value of a trip day for trips of different
duration. Numerous studies of recreational values
of natural ecosystems report average values of a
trip day. These values are often multiplied by the
average number of user days at a site for an estimate of the recreational value of a site. This question is relevant when considering how to optimally
apply a quota to a wilderness recreation area. Is it
better to allocate a quota of user days per season
by reducing the number of trips, and allowing trips
of longer duration or to increase the overall number of people who may take trips, but limit the days
per trip? In the latter case, a larger number of people per season are able to enjoy the area, but their
trips may be shorter than they wish. If the marginal
value per trip day for a single trip is constant, then
each day is worth the same as every other day. In
this case the answer to the allocational question
may be an issue of how the benefits of the resource
are to be distributed over potential users. On the
other hand, if the marginal value of a trip day declines for days during a trip, then limiting the length
of trips and allowing a larger number of shorter
trips may increase the overall value of a site.
Rollins et al. (1997a) designed a study to address
both willingness to pay for alternative crowding
conditions and over trips of different durations.
They detennined that the marginal value for a trip
day for wilderness canoeing in three of Ontario's
most popular backcountry provincial parks was
about $60 per user day, on average. However, when
broken down the value on a day by day basis, the
tential costs savings from perfonning a benefits
transfer instead of a primary valuation study. However, in many situations the choice of method is not
always obvious. In general, revealed preference
methods, such as travel cost models, have the advantage that they are often less expensive to carry
out than are stated preference methods.
16.6 Examples
Two examples of nonmarket valuation studies with
the policy scenarios that they were intended to infonn are given next. Two common themes in these
examples are the importance of the policy context
of the valuation problem and the importance of a
well-planned experimental design. The policy context defines the precise good that is to be valued
and the units and ranges of use that are relevant for
policy alternatives. Planning requires time in the
initial phases. However, as these examples illustrate, attention to design enhances the reliability
and validity of estimates.
The first example is the measurement of the
value of wilderness canoeing in Ontario Provincial
Parks. The estimates were expected to provide infonnation for a number of policy decisions. These
potential policy actions included increasing the
quotas on wilderness canoe routes to increase revenues from this activity as a way to address budget shortfalls, increasing the backcountry user fees,
and increasing the area of wilderness-zoned areas
in Ontario Parks. The second example is a study
that measured existence values of creating new national parks in extremely remote regions. These
parks would not be developed for recreation or visitation, but instead for ecosystem preservation. The
interesting feature of this example is that a total of
ten parks is required to fulfill the park system goal,
whereas four were specifically proposed in the policy proposal. The study was designed to measure
the value of the four parks relative to the goal of
creating ten parks. The results indicate that the marginal value of a new park decreased as more parks
were added to the system. This would be consistent with a perception among the public that as
more and more areas were devoted to preservation,
at the margin, additional protected areas would be
less scarce than other potential uses of the same financial and capital public resources.
16.6.1 Example 1: Valuation of
Wilderness Canoeing in Ontario
In 1993, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
was faced with large budget cuts and increasing deMeasuring Ecosystem Values
mand by recreational users of provincial lands. One
method discussed to meet an increasing shortfall
was the relaxation of daily quotas to wilderness areas. It seemed reasonable that, if there was increasing demand, allowing more users per unit area
would generate more user fees per unit area. The
possibility of increasing the fees while maintaining
or even further restricting quotas was considered to
be politically difficult. One problem with this view
was that the quest for increased operating revenues
obscures the true economic value of the recreational resources. Past work on the effects of congestion on the value of recreational experiences
suggests that by relaxing quotas the value per recreational user day may be expected to decline. Thus
consumer surplus per trip day, or the value of individual benefits over and above the expenses for
a trip, may decline. So, while more user days are
experienced, the overall value per user day declines. It is possible that greater overall value might
be achieved by increasing user fees per user day
and maintaining or even further restricting day use
quotas for wilderness areas.
A second question relates to the reliability of the
estimated value of a trip day for trips of different
duration. Numerous studies of recreational values
of natural ecosystems report average values of a
trip day. These values are often multiplied by the
average number of user days at a site for an estimate of the recreational value of a site. This question is relevant when considering how to optimally
apply a quota to a wilderness recreation area. Is it
better to allocate a quota of user days per season
by reducing the number of trips, and allowing trips
of longer duration or to increase the overall number of people who may take trips, but limit the days
per trip? In the latter case, a larger number of people per season are able to enjoy the area, but their
trips may be shorter than they wish. If the marginal
value per trip day for a single trip is constant, then
each day is worth the same as every other day. In
this case the answer to the allocational question
may be an issue of how the benefits of the resource
are to be distributed over potential users. On the
other hand, if the marginal value of a trip day declines for days during a trip, then limiting the length
of trips and allowing a larger number of shorter
trips may increase the overall value of a site.
Rollins et al. (1997a) designed a study to address
both willingness to pay for alternative crowding
conditions and over trips of different durations.
They detennined that the marginal value for a trip
day for wilderness canoeing in three of Ontario's
most popular backcountry provincial parks was
about $60 per user day, on average. However, when
broken down the value on a day by day basis, the