7793 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

94 A.1. DOUGLAS AND R. L. JOHNSON an outdoor recreation site for the purpose of engaging in a water based recreation activity varies with the instream flow. In a study of angling benefits at nine western slope sites, Walsh et al.19 distin- guished between two distinct sources of benefits from site specific quality improve- ments. Namely, Walsh et al.19 estimated per trip increases in benefits generated by the site improvement, and they also estimated benefits from planned additional trips to the site. The two sources of benefits are closely related in models of rational con- sumer behavior, in which a basic postulate is that the rational response to quality improvement is an increase in expenditures per unit time on the item in question.20 Walsh et al.19 estimated that nearly 40% of the total increase in benefits conferred by improved streamflows at these sites were generated by planned additional trips. A novel approach is reported in Duffield et al.21 in which participation effects of improved streamflows were estimated by counting the number of recreationists at each of several sites for various flow levels. The CVM survey instrument of Duffield et al.21 was administered on-site at two Montana rivers for 37 days during an inter- val that spanned 120 days. The contribution of the participation effect to total benefits conferred from improved streamflows was about one-third of the nonmar- ket on-site benefits conferred. Contingent value method studies such as that by Bishop et al.4 that omit the change in trips may markedly underestimate streamflow related benefits. Bishop et al.4 study flow related changes in benefits conferred for whitewater raft- ing and angling near Lee's Ferry on the Colorado River. Participation days for white water rafting are effectively limited by the National Park Service.4 Angling trips are not limited by regulations, and Richards and WOOd11 report that anglers typically make multiple trips each year. Bishop et al. 4 note that congestion costs might increase markedly along with the increase in aggregate trips to the Colorado River, and that the increase in congestion costs diminishes the aggregate net benefits generated by additional angling trips to the site. The reasoning of Bishop et al.4 on the estimation problem is on target. This line of reasoning also implies that per trip benefits from improved streamflows are ov~restimated by contingent value method studies that omit congestion cost estimates, while aggregate benefits conferred by the site are underestimated if benefits conferred by additional trips to the site are omitted. Loomis et al.7 and other economists have measured the value of aggregate benefits conferred by merely knowing that instream flows of a certain magnitude exist. Such nonmarket benefits are called off-site or existence benefits. The more conventional benefits associated with water based recreational activities and costly visits to a specific stream reach are called on-site benefits. Off-site benefits are anal- ogous to the utilities a citizen receives from knowing that a political office holder is a politician that the citizen respects and admires. Campaign contributions from non- active party members suggest that these aggregate benefits are not trivial. On-site benefits are analogous to the utilities a citizen in a democracy receives from active participation in elections and politics. Such participation includes attending conventions, campaigning for various party candidates, giving and writing speeches on specific issues, and running for office. The utilities generated by these activities often increase with costly outlays of time or money. Intuition and empiri- cal data reported in Walsh et al.22 and Loomis23 suggest that per capita off-site benefits provided by instream flows are small in comparison with on-site benefits provided by instream flows. However, the number of households that receive posi- tive annual off-site benefits is usually much greater than the number that visit a site each year.23