Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Panel Estimators To Combine Revealed And Stated Preference Dichotomous Choice Data

Contents:

Author Info

  • Loomis, John B.

Abstract

Combining stated and revealed preference data often involved multiple responses from the same individual. Panel estimators are appropriate to jointly model the decision to actually visit at current trip costs, the intention to visit at hypothetically higher trip costs, and the intention to visit at proposed quality levels. To incorporate data on all three choices, the random effects probit model is used to estimate the economic value of changes in instream flow as a covariate in the model and calculating value under alternative flow regimes.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/30862
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Western Agricultural Economics Association in its journal Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 22 (1997)
Issue (Month): 02 (December)
Pages:

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:30862

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://waeaonline.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Shaw, Daigee, 1988. "On-site samples' regression : Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 211-223, February.
  2. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
  3. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
  4. Englin, Jeffrey & Shonkwiler, J S, 1995. "Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 104-12, February.
  5. Jeffrey Englin & Trudy Cameron, 1996. "Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 133-147, March.
  6. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
  7. John Loomis, 1993. "An investigation into the reliability of intended visitation behavior," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(2), pages 183-191, April.
  8. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

RePEc Biblio mentions

As found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:
  1. > Environmental and Natural Resource Economics > Environmental Economics > Valuation > Contingent valuation method > Revealed preference and joint estimation
Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Mathews, Leah Greden, 1999. "Estimating Water Quality Benefits By Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Methods: An Application In The Minnesota River," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21621, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  2. Anna Alberini & Valentina Zanatta & Paolo Rosato, 2005. "Combining Actual and Contingent Behavior to Estimate the Value of Sports Fishing in the Lagoon of Venice," Working Papers 2005.44, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  3. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Loomis, John B. & Shrestha, Ram K., 1999. "Panel Stratification In Meta-Analysis Of Environmental And Natural Resource Economic Studies," 1999 Annual Meeting, July 11-14, 1999, Fargo, ND, Western Agricultural Economics Association 35705, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
  4. Hynes, Stephen & Greene, William, 2011. "Estimating recreation demand with on-site panel data: An application of a latent class truncated and endogenously stratified count data model," Working Papers, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, National University of Ireland, Galway 148925, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, National University of Ireland, Galway.
  5. Lienhoop, Nele & Ansmann, Till, 2011. "Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1250-1258, May.
  6. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
  7. Yongsik Jeon & Joseph Herriges, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Contingent Behavior Responses in Models of Recreation Demand," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 223-250, February.
  8. Simões, Paula & Barata, Eduardo & Cruz, Luís, 2013. "Joint estimation using revealed and stated preference data: An application using a national forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 249-266.
  9. Boxall, Peter C. & Rollins, Kimberly S. & Englin, Jeffrey E., 2002. "Heterogeneous Preferences For Congestion During A Wilderness Experience," Working Papers, University of Guelph, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics 34133, University of Guelph, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics.
  10. Moledina, Amyaz A., 2001. "Comparing Policy Instruments in a Dynamic Environment with Strategic Firms: The Case of Minnesota Phosphorus Emissions," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20751, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  11. Therese Grijalva & Alok Bohara & Robert Berrens, 2003. "A seemingly unrelated Poisson model for revealed and stated preference data," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 443-446.
  12. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Loomis, John B., 2000. "Panel Stratification In Meta-Analysis Of Economic Studies: An Investigation Of Its Effects In The Recreation Valuation Literature," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(03), December.
  13. Paula Simões & Luís Cruz & Eduardo Barata, 2012. "Non-market Recreational Value of a National Forest: Survey Design and Results," GEMF Working Papers 2012-09, GEMF - Faculdade de Economia, Universidade de Coimbra.
  14. Johansson, Robert C., 2002. "Watershed Nutrient Trading Under Asymmetric Information," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(2), October.
  15. Mathews, Leah Greden & Homans, Frances R. & Easter, K. William, 1999. "Reducing Phosphorus Pollution In The Minnesota River: How Much Is It Worth?," Staff Papers, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics 13771, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:30862. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.