Repository logo

Browsing by Author "Ellingson, Lindsey Jo, author"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Comparing methodologies to estimate tourists' nonconsumptive use values of recreation, roadways and ranches: international and domestic applications
    (Colorado State University. Libraries, 2007) Ellingson, Lindsey Jo, author; Seidl, Andrew, advisor
    The objective of this dissertation is to compare two nonmarket valuation methods to estimate tourists' nonconsumptive use values of scenic viewscapes in three applications. The two nonmarket valuation techniques analyzed are the contingent behavior and contingent valuation methods. The contingent behavior method asks respondents their intended visitation behavior contingent on a hypothetical change to the good or service in question. The contingent valuation method asks respondents their willingness to pay for a hypothetical change to the good or service in question. The three applications evaluated in this research are a National Reserve in Bolivia, a scenic roadway in Argentine Patagonia and ranch open space in Routt County, Colorado. Specifically, respondents were asked their willingness to pay and travel behavior contingent on improved park service (i.e. tourist information center and naturalist guides) at Eduardo Avaroa Reserve in Bolivia. In Argentina, visitors were asked their willingness to pay and travel behavior to Glaciers National Park contingent on differing levels of development (i.e. telecommunication and mining infrastructure) along the roadway from El Calafate, the gateway community, to Glaciers National Park. For Routt County, tourists were asked how many fewer (or more) dollars per day and number of days they would travel to Routt County if existing ranchlands were converted to urban uses (i.e. housing and other resort development). Quantitative comparative analysis is conducted across the applications to determine whether there is a difference among contingent behavior and contingent valuation responses. The results show that the two methods produce statistical and policy relevant different results. In addition, other analyses were conducted evaluating differences based on survey elicitation languages, tour package purchases, using pictures to measure different levels of development, survey responses across time and regional impact analyses.