Recreation Economics: Taking Stock
回顾了休闲经济学领域过去十年未能响应学者建议、仍过度聚焦于收益估算而非政策资源分配研究的原因，并评估这些解释在政策导向下的合理性。
A decade ago, Gum and Martin (1975) recommended rearranging priorities in outdoor recreation research. They urged deemphasis of recreation benefit estimation technique development and advocated, instead, concentrating on interpreting these estimates in studies of resource allocation. Four years later, Batie and Shabman (1979) wrote have not established relative for policies and inputs over which agencies have control (e.g., habitat management and fish stocking), and instead have focused research efforts on establishing for recreational services (p. 931). They added that collectively economists have paid too little attention to the physical production and transformation linkages between public policies and recreation values (p. 931). Just why the profession has failed to heed these admonitions is unclear. We can only speculate why the tradition of recreation economics remains synonymous with benefit estimation or nonmarket valuation. In this paper, we explore plausible explanations and attempt to evaluate their legitimacy in a policyoriented context.