Measuring the Social Recreation Per-Day Net Benefit of the Wildlife Amenities of a National Park: A Count-Data Travel-Cost Approach
Open accessAbstract
In this article, we apply count-data travel-cost methods to a truncated sample of visitors to estimate the Peneda-Gerês National Park (PGNP) average consumer surplus (CS) for each day of visit. The measurement of recreation demand is highly specific because it is calculated by number of days of stay per visit. We therefore propose the application of altered truncated count-data models or truncated count-data models on grouped data to estimate a single, on-site individual recreation demand function, with the price (cost) of each recreation day per trip equal to out-of-pocket and time travel plus out-of-pocket and on-site time costs. We further check the sensitivity of coefficient estimations to alternative models and analyse the welfare measure precision by using the delta and simulation methods by Creel and Loomis. With simulated limits, CS is estimated to be <euro>194 (range <euro>116 to <euro>448). This information is of use in the quest to improve government policy and PNPG management and conservation as well as promote nature-based tourism. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to measure the average recreation net benefits of each day of stay generated by a national park by using truncated altered and truncated grouped count-data travel-cost models based on observing the individual number of days of stay.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The severity of the effect of smoke from wildland fires on health is still not well understood.
“The consensus of the literature is that smoke from wildland fires has deleterious effects on the health of people exposed to it, but the severity of that effect is still not well understood.”
From The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey (2017) · cites this paper as [27]
The consensus of the literature is that smoke from wildland fires has deleterious effects on the health of people exposed to it.
“The consensus of the literature is that smoke from wildland fires has deleterious effects on the health of people exposed to it, but the severity of that effect is still not well understood.”
From The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey (2017) · cites this paper as [27]
In the Champ et al. study, only 13 % identified themselves as being in an extreme or high risk area when in fact it was 27 %.
“Only 13 % identified themselves as being in an extreme or high risk area when in fact it was 27 %.”
From The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey (2017) · cites this paper as [129]
Champ et al. estimated in a Colorado Springs case study that only 27 % of homebuyers were aware of the risk to wildfire when purchasing their home.
“For instance, Champ et al. estimated in a Colorado Springs case study that only 27 % of homebuyers were aware of the risk to wildfire when purchasing their home.129”
From The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey (2017) · cites this paper as [129]
In the Champ et al. study, homeowners tended to underestimate their wildfire risk with 21 % believing they had a low risk when in fact only 1 % had a low risk.
“In the same study, homeowners tended to underestimate their wildfire risk with 21 % believing they had a low risk when in fact only 1 % had a low risk.”
From The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey (2017) · cites this paper as [129]
Proximity to dangerous topography was associated with an increase in the sales price of a home.
“This paper also identified that proximity to dangerous topography was, actually, associated with an increase in the sales price of a home”
From The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey (2017) · cites this paper as [129]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey
Thomas, D., Butry, D., Gilbert, S., Webb, D., & Fung, J. (2017) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.1215 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mendes, I., & Proença, I.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (PT)
- Corresponding author
- Mendes, Isabel
- ORCID
- Mendes, Isabel
- Venue
- Environmental Management
- Published
- 2011-09-13
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 920-932
- ISSN
- 0364-152X (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1009
- OpenAlex
- W2008429706
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- other-oa
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
- Keywords
- Peneda-Gerês National Park, national parks, recreation demand, consumer surplus, nature-based tourism, park management, conservation policy, welfare measurement
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animals, Wild, Conservation of Natural Resources, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Models, Biological, Portugal, Recreation, Social Environment, Travel
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
