Recreation benefits of instream flow: Application to Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers

Abstract

Allocation of water between instream uses such as recreation and consumptive uses such as irrigation is an important public policy issue in the western United States. One basis for identifying appropriate levels of instream flows is maximization of net economic benefits. A general framework for estimating the recreational value of instream flows was developed and applied to Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot rivers. The paper also provides a synthesis of methods for interpreting covariate effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models. Precision of the estimates isexamined through a simulation approach. The marginal recreational value of instream flow in these rivers is in the range of $50 per acre foot (1 acre foot equals 1233.5 m 3) for recreation at low-flow levels plus $25 per acre foot for downstream hydroelectric generation. These values indicate that at some flow levels, gains may be achieved on the study rivers by reallocating water from consumptive to instream uses. sured the participation effect described by the first term in (2), while applications by Walsh et al. [1980], Daubert and Young [1981], and Boyle et al. [1988] correspond to the concurrent effects of instream flow on the quality of the recreational experience (second term in equation (2)). Johnson and Adams' [1988] model is an example of a model examining lagged effects, corresponding to the third term in(2). It is possible that only one or two of the three terms may be empirically significant for a given resource. However, it is also possible that all three effects may be important. To the extent that the signs on the partial derivatives are positive in the streamflow range of interest, an implication of this framework is that previous estimates of recreational instream flow values may be conservative.

Valuing the Potential Benefits of Water Quality Improvements in Watersheds Affected by Non-Point Source Pollution

“…Several of the reviewed studies already used the RFF ladder's water quality states and numeric indicators (i.e., 0 = not safe for human use; 2 = boatable; 5 = fishable; 7 = swimmable; 9 = drinkable), hence no adaptation was required and the water quality states were coded using the RFF ladder as a guide. However, a number of other studies used different water quality criteria based on severity of pollution [33], and quality of recreational fishing [31,34]. We therefore created the mapping guide illustrated in Figure 2 to include these variations in water quality scenarios, and coded the different water quality states in the meta-database accordingly.…”

Optimal Reoperation of Multi-Reservoirs for Integrated Watershed Management with Multiple Benefits

“…The second method is usually associated with multipurpose reservoir projects and may be described as the cost method. A third estimate, based on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for landscape and recreation values, is also an effective evaluation method [24][25][26][27]. Water level fluctuations can have harmful impacts on recreation.…”

How certain are visitors of their economic values of river recreation: An evaluation using repeated questioning and revealed preference

“…Since public agencies often do not charge market clearing prices for access to rivers for recreation, economists estimate the value of river recreation using either revealed preference methods such as the travel cost method [Ward, 1983[Ward, , 1987 or intended behavior methods such as contingent valuation [Duffield et al, 1992].…”