The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the use of the individual travel-cost method by using it to value informal recreation along the Montgomery and Lancaster Canals. Informal recreation covers all activities such as walking and sightseeing, for which no price or entry fee is charged. Consumer surplus on each type of informal recreation was estimated by the individual travel-cost method: Assessment of how much people were prepared to pay to undertake different activities. The Montgomery and Lancaster Canals provide examples against which to compare consumer surplus from informal recreation against public subsidies for their operation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BalkanEKahnJ R, 1988, “The value of changes in deer hunting quality: A travel cost approach”Applied Economics20533–539
2.
BockstaelN EHanemanW MStrandI E, 1984, “Measuring the benefits of water quality improvement using recreation demand models”, report CR-811043-01-1, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
3.
BWB, 1989a, “Report and accounts of the British Waterways Board 1988/9”, British Waterways Board, Melbury House, Melbury Terrace, London NW1
4.
BWB, 1989b, “Lancaster Canal survey of informal users, Summer 1987”, paper 27, Planning and Research Unit, British Waterways Board, Penn Place, Rickmansworth, Herts WD3 1EU
5.
BWB, 1989c, “Montgomery Canal visitor survey 1988”, paper 29, Planning and Research Unit, British Waterways Board, Penn Place, Rickmansworth, Herts WD3 1EU
6.
ClawsonMKnetschJ L, 1966Economics of Outdoor Recreation (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
7.
DoT, 1987, “Values for journey time savings and accident prevention”, Department of Transport, 2 Marsham St, London SW1
8.
EdwardsL A, 1972Inland Waterways of Great Britanrevised edition (Imray, Laurie, Norie and Wilson, St Ives)
9.
HadfieldC, 1968The Canal Age (David and Charles, Newton Abbott, Devon)
10.
LoomisJSorgCDonnellyD, 1986, “Economic losses to recreational fisheries due to small-head hydropower development: A case study of the Henry's Fork in Idaho”Journal of Environmental Management2285–94
11.
MaddalaG S, 1983Limited-dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
12.
NOP, 1986, “The British waterways systems leisure and tourism usage and perception”, National Opinion Poll Market Research Ltd, Planning and Research Unit, British Waterways Board, Penn Place, Rickmansworth, Herts WD3 1EU
13.
SmithV K, 1988, “Selection and recreation demand”American Journal of Agricultural Economics7029–36
14.
SmithV KDesvousgesW H, 1985, “The generalised travel cost model and water quality benefits: A reconsideration”Southen Economic Journal52371–381
15.
WalshR GLoomisJ BGillmanR S, 1984, “Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness”Land Economics6014–29
16.
WillisK G, 1980The Economics of Town and Country Planning (Collins, London)
17.
WillisK G, 1989, “Option value and non-user benefits of wildlife conservation”Journal of Rural Studies5245–256
18.
WillisK GBensonJ F, 1988, “A comparison of user benefits and costs of nature conservation at three nature reserves”Regional Studies22417–428
19.
WillisK GBensonJ FSaundersC M, 1988, “The impact of agricultural policy on the costs of nature conservation”Land Economics64147–157
