Estimating Recreational Travel and Economic Values of State Parks
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 111, Issue 1
Abstract
Recreational travel—unlike work trips—is highly discretionary; it is also highly sensitive to the location and attractiveness of a recreational facility. Estimating visitations to state parks therefore requires a demand model that explicitly includes both travel propensity to the entire system of parks and choice among individual, competing facilities. These two components—corresponding to the complementary and substitutional effects among recreational sites—are incorporated in a model specification. A decomposition procedure calibrates each of these two components individually and then integrates them in the final model. The procedure is successfully applied toward the waterfront state parks in the New York/Long Island area. The case study illustrates the mathematical properties of the model using a comprehensive set of sensitivity analyses. These analyses also yield estimation on visitation, revenue and direct benefits (as measured by consumers' surplus) corresponding to user‐charge increases, park improvements and closings.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Bazarraa, M. S., and Shetty, C. M. (1979). Non‐Linear Programming: Theory and Algorithms, Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
2.
Beggs, J. J. (1984). “The Value of Travel to Recreational Facilities: The Uncertainty Issue.” International Journal of Transport Economics, 11.
3.
Brasher, B. (1984). “A Distribution Model of the Parks of Washington State,” Transportation Engineering Working Paper, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Washington State Univ., Pullman, Wash.
4.
Brog, W. (1982). “Subjective Perception of Car Costs,” Transportation Research Record, No. 858, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
5.
Carroll, O. T., Chan, Y., Sexton, T., Silkman, R. (1982). “An Assessment of Regional and State‐Wide Economic Impacts of New York State Parks,” Institute for Urban Science Research, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, N.Y.
6.
Cesario, F. J. (1975). “A Combined Trip Generation and Distribution Model,” Transportation Science, Vol. 9, pp. 211–223.
7.
Cesario, F. J., and Knetsch, J. L. (1976). “A Recreation Site Demand and Benefit Estimation Model,” Regional Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 97–104.
8.
Clawson, M., and Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of Outdoor Recreation, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.
9.
Cochrane, R. A. (1975). “A Possible Economic Base for the Gravity Model,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Jan., pp. 34–49.
10.
Fotheringham, A. S. (1983). “A New Set of Spatial‐interaction Models: The Theory of Competing Destinations,” Environment and Planning A, Vol. 15, pp. 15–36.
11.
Hughes, J. M., and Lloyd, R. D., Eds. (1977). “Outdoor Recreation—Advances in Applications of Economics,” U.S. Forest Service Technical Report WO‐2, March.
12.
New York State Statistical Yearbook 1979–1980. (1980). New York State Dept. of Commerce.
13.
Stopher, P. R., and Ergun, G. (1982). “The Effect of Location on Demand for Urban Recreation Trips,” Transportation Research, 16A(1), pp. 25–34.
14.
Vickerman, R. W. (1974). “The Evaluation of Benefits from Recreational Projects,” Urban Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 277–288.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 111 • Issue 1 • January 1985
Pages: 65 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 1985
Published in print: Jan 1985
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.