Recreational benefits of water resource development

Merewitz, Leonard

doi:10.1029/wr002i004p00625

Cited by 19 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The expected activity levels for recreational use had been researched prior to 1967 by investigators such as Hotelling (1949), Hines (1958), Trice and Wood (1958), Clawson (1959), Marts and Sewell (1959), Knetsch (1963), and Merewitz (1966). Most of this work treated the survey of visitors to water projects to determine how far they had travelled and what they had been willing to pay to avail themselves of the good times.…”

Section: Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

WILD RIVERS ‐ METHODS FOR EVALUATION¹

Sonnen

Davis

1979

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two analytical methods are presented and demonstrated for evaluating the monetary and nonmonetary benefits of wild rivers. In the traditional benefit‐cost context special techniques are required to show that any wild river is worthy of preservation. The methods presented allow for the possibility of low development levels in river basins to be optimal, although advanced development can also be shown to be most efficient in some circumstances. That is, the methods are not directed to the wild condition only but to the entire spectrum of development possibilities. The applications of the methods to two adjacent subbasins in the State of Washington each showed that the currently undeveloped basin should be left in its wild condition, while the partially developed basin next door should be developed even more fully.

show abstract

Section: Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

WILD RIVERS ‐ METHODS FOR EVALUATION¹

Sonnen

Davis

1979

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The methods which have shown the greatest promise for evaluating recreational benefits are the monopoly revenue method (also known as the Clawson Demand Curves) and a modification of ths method introduced by Lerner-that of discriminating monopoly revenue. Extensions of these methods have since been made by Knetsch [1963], Merewitz [1966], Wennergren [1964], Brown, Singh, Castle [1964] , and Stevens [1966].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

MEASURING INTANGIBLE BENEFITS ‐SOME NEEDED RESEARCH¹

Wyckoff

1971

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Society has long sought to maximize the welfare of its members by allocating its limited resources so as to provide maximum satisfaction. As long as all of the values that society gains or loses are measured in the market place in terms of price, the process of maximizing through economic models is relatively straightforward. In fact, however, the total value that society receives from the use of its resources is not completely measured through the private market transactions. There are some values created which are external to the market system. The resulting underinvestment in natural resources by the private sector necessitates the entry of the public sector. The presence of intangible benefits and intangible costs has long been recognized, but completely satisfactory methods for including these in the quantitative analysis of benefit‐cost have not been developed. Some progress has been made in including recreational values in project analysis via the expenditures method, the Gross National Product method, consumer surplus method, cost method, market value method, and monopoly and discriminating monopoly methods, but little has been done in the area of aesthetic values. Techniques for including such values in project evaluation need to be further researched. Tradeoff models developed by market researchers, the advertising industry, social psychologists and sociologists may have some applicability. Methodology for including proposed multiple objective functions in project analysis is also a critical need.

show abstract