Online Resource 4: Review of Estimated
Snorkeling and Diving Recreational Values
Climatic Change Article: Climate Change Impacts on Freshwater Fish, Coral
Reefs, and Related Ecosystem Services in the United States
Authors: Diana Lane, Russell Jones, David Mills, Cameron Wobus, Richard C.
Ready, Robert W. Buddemeier, Jeremy Martinich, and Kate Shouse
Corresponding author: Diana Lane, Stratus Consulting Inc.,
dlane@stratusconsulting.com
Review of estimated snorkeling and diving recreational values
Study
Study region
Leeworthy and Bowker
(1997)
Florida
Park et al. (2002)
Florida
Valuation method
Consumer surplus per day
(US 2005$)
Travel cost
$113.08
Contingent valuation
$179.30
Travel cost
$61.07
Cesar et al. (2002)
Hawaii
Contingent valuation
$10.44a
Bhat (2003)
Florida
Travel cost
$150.44
Johns et al. (2001)
Florida
Contingent valuation
$14.33
Oh et al. (2008)
Gulf of Mexico
Contingent valuation
$205.95
Estudios Técnicos (2007)
Puerto Rico
Travel cost
$105.43
Average (95% confidence interval)
a
$104.96 ($54.57, $155.35)
Average of values for residents, visiting snorkelers, and visiting divers.
We chose to use a single estimate (average +/- 95% confidence interval) across all
the sites for the following reasons. For Hawaii, only one consumer surplus
estimate is available (Cesar et al. 2002). That study used a contingent valuation
survey of visitors to a marine park in Hawaii and found an average consumer
surplus of around $10 ($2005) per visit for reef-based recreation, which is much
lower than other studies on reef recreation. The study used a payment card
methodology, with a range of prices from -$50 to +$50. This method can bias
consumer surplus estimates downward if the payment card does not include
sufficiently large values (Rowe et al. 1996). The average of estimates for the other
locations is approximately $119. We find it unlikely that the consumer surplus for
reef recreation in Hawaii would be less than 10% of the average for reef
recreation in other United States (U.S.) locations, suggesting that the Cesar et al.
estimate from Hawaii was biased downward by the methodology used. We also
found only a single consumer surplus estimate for Puerto Rico of approximately
$105 (Estudios Tecnicos 2007), which was almost identical to the average of all
the consumer surplus estimates in the table above. Instead of using one value for
Puerto Rico and a separate value for Hawaii and Florida that differed by less than
a dollar, we chose to use a single estimate across all the sites.
1
We calculated a 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean consumer surplus
value based on the calculated standard deviation of the eight study estimates under
the assumption that the values in our table represent a random sample of
snorkeling and diving recreational values for U.S. locations.
References
Bhat MG (2003) Application of non-market valuation to the Florida keys marine reserve
management. J Environ Manage 67(4):315325
Cesar H, van Beukering P, Pintz S, Dierking S (2002) Economic valuation of the coral reefs of
Hawaii. Final report. Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative Research Program
Estudios Técnicos (2007) Valoración económica de los arrecifes de coral y ambientes asociados en
el este de Puerto Rico: Fajardo, arrecifes la cordillera, vieques y culebra. Estudios Técnicos Inc.
Informe Final DRNA/NOAA
Johns GM, Leeworthy VR, Bell FW, Bonn MA (2001) Socioeconomic study of reefs in Southeast
Florida. Final report. Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Leeworthy VR, Bowker JM (1997) Nonmarket economic user values of the Florida Keys/Key
West. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic
Environmental Assessments Division
Oh CO, Ditton RB, Stoll JR (2008) The economic value of scuba diving use of natural and
artificial reef habitats. Soc Nat Resour 21(6):455468
Park T, Bowker JM, Leeworthy VR (2002) Valuing snorkeling visits to the Florida Keys with
stated and revealed preference models. J Environ Manage 65:301–312
Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Breffle WS. 1996. A test for payment card biases. J Environ Econ
Manage 31:178185
2