Is hiking worth it? A contingent valuation case study of Multnomah Falls, Oregon

被引：6
作者：
Lorber, Connor [1 ]
Dittrich, Ruth [1 ]
Jones, Sharon [2 ]
Junge, Alex [3 ]
机构：
[1] Univ Portland, Dept Econ, 5000 N Willamette Blvd, Portland, OR 97203 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Dept Acad Affairs, 18115 NE Campus Way, Bothell, WA 98011 USA
[3] Univ Portland, Dept Engn, 5000 N Willamette Blvd, Portland, OR 97203 USA
来源：
FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS | 2021年 / 128卷
关键词：
Willingness-to-pay; Contingent valuation; Recreation; Non-market valuation; Hiking; Wildfire;
D O I：
10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102471
中图分类号：
F [经济];
学科分类号：
02 ;
摘要：
Multnomah Falls, a 620-ft-tall waterfall in the Columbia River Gorge, is the most visited natural site in Oregon. Its economic value is unclear, however, as the Falls are free to access. Due to a wildfire in 2017, the site was partially closed for over a year. Costly repair work was carried out along the single trail that allows visitors to hike to the top of the waterfall. In this study, we first determined the overall economic value of this iconic site. Secondly, we broke down the economic value by the different trail segments at Multnomah Falls. Using the contingent valuation method, we estimated willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the Falls (n = 1190) and counted visitors using infrared sensors along the trail and parking lot count data from June to September 2019 to obtain economic benefits across the population. We found that visitors who travelled to the top of the Falls experienced greater WTP than ones who only travelled to the bottom, with mean WTP ranging from $8.24 - $9.66 per trip. The total annual benefit provided by Multnomah Falls is estimated to be at least $11.23 m, which considerably exceeds the cost of repairing the trails after the fire (approximately $3 m).
引用
收藏
页数：9
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [1] Aizaki H., Measuring the Difference between Two Empirical Distributions, (2015)
  • [2] Alberini A., Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound, and bivariate models, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 28, 3, pp. 287-306, (1995)
  • [3] Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H., Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Fed. Regist., 58, 10, pp. 4601-4614, (1993)
  • [4] Baerenklau K.A., Gonzalez-Caban A., Paez C., Chavez E., Spatial allocation of forest recreation value, J. For. Econ., 16, 2, pp. 113-126, (2010)
  • [5] Barrio M., Loureiro M.L., A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies, Ecol. Econ., 69, 5, pp. 1023-1030, (2010)
  • [6] Boxall P.C., Englin J.E., Fire and recreation values in fire-prone forests: exploring an intertemporal amenity function using pooled RP-SP data, J. Agric. Resour. Econ., pp. 19-33, (2008)
  • [7] Boyle K.J., Contingent valuation in practice, A primer on nonmarket valuation, pp. 83-131, (2017)
  • [8] Champ P.A., Boyle K.J., Brown T.C., A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, (2017)
  • [9] Dhakal B., Yao R.T., Turner J.A., Barnard T., Recreational users’ willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features, Forest Policy Econ., 17, pp. 34-44, (2012)
  • [10] Duffield J.W., Neher C.J., Brown T.C., Recreation benefits of instream flow: application to Montana's big hole and bitterroot Rivers, Water Resour. Res., 28, 9, pp. 2169-2181, (1992)
123