IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v7y1996i2p133-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey Englin
  • Trudy Cameron

Abstract

This paper proposes contingent behavior survey questions as a valuable supplement to observed data in travel cost models of non-market demand for recreational resources. A set of observed and contingent behavior results for each survey respondent allows the researcher to control for individual heterogeneity by taking advantage of panel data methods when exploring the nature of respondent demands. The contingent scenarios also provide opportunities to (a) test for differences between observed and contingent preferences and/or (b) assess likely demands under conditionsbeyond the domain of observed variation in costs or resource attributes. Most importantly, contingent scenarios allow the researcher to imposeexogenously varying travel costs. Exogenous imposition of travel costs together with panel methods reduces the omitted variables bias that plagues observed-data travel cost models of recreational demand. Using a convenience sample of data for illustrative purposes, we show how to estimate the demand for recreational angling by combining observed and contingent behavior data. We begin with simple naive pooled Poisson models and progress to more theoretically appropriate fixed effects panel Poisson specifications. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey Englin & Trudy Cameron, 1996. "Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 133-147, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:7:y:1996:i:2:p:133-147
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00699288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00699288
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00699288?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter P. Caulkins & Richard C. Bishop & Nicolaas W. Bouwes, 1985. "Omitted Cross-Price Variable Biases in the Linear Travel Cost Model: Correcting Common Misperceptions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 182-187.
    2. Catherine L. Kling, 1989. "A Note on the Welfare Effects of Omitting Substitute Prices and Qualities from Travel Cost Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(3), pages 290-296.
    3. Daniel M. Hellerstein, 1991. "Using Count Data Models in Travel Cost Analysis with Aggregate Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(3), pages 860-866.
    4. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    5. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    6. John R. McKean & Charles F. Revier, 1990. "An Extension of: "Omitted Cross-Price Variable Biases in the Linear Travel Cost Model: Correcting Common Misperceptions"," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(4), pages 430-436.
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall & Zvi Griliches & Jerry A. Hausman, 1984. "Patents and R&D: Is There A Lag?," NBER Working Papers 1454, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    9. 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.
    10. Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi & Hausman, Jerry A, 1986. "Patents and R and D: Is There a Lag?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(2), pages 265-283, June.
    11. Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Trognon, Alain, 1984. "Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 701-720, May.
    12. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
    13. P. Geoffrey Allen & Thomas H. Stevens & Scott A. Barrett, 1981. "The Effects of Variable Omission in the Travel Cost Technique," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 173-180.
    14. Daniel Hellerstein, 1993. "Intertemporal data and travel cost analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(2), pages 193-207, April.
    15. Elizabeth A. Wilman & James Perras, 1989. "The Substitute Price Variable in the Travel Cost Equation," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 37(2), pages 249-261, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Ham Ziedonis, Rosemarie, 1999. "Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1rg1088v, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. Lee Branstetter, 1996. "Are Knowledge Spillovers International or Intranational in Scope? Microeconometric Evidence from the Japan and the United States," NBER Working Papers 5800, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Wladimir Raymond & Pierre Mohnen & Franz Palm & Sybrand Schim van der Loeff, 2009. "Innovative Sales, R&D and Total Innovation Expenditures: Panel Evidence on their Dynamics," CESifo Working Paper Series 2716, CESifo.
    4. Eiswerth, Mark & Englin, Jeffrey & Fadali, Elizabeth & Shaw, W. Douglass, 1999. "The Value of Water Levels in Water-Based Recreation: A Pooled Revealed Preference Contingent Behavior Model," Western Region Archives 321707, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    5. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    6. Gouriéroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain, 1997. "Modèles de comptage semi-paramétriques," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 73(1), pages 525-550, mars-juin.
    7. Sun, Xiuli & Li, Haizheng & Ghosal, Vivek, 2020. "Firm-level human capital and innovation: Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    8. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & Windmeijer, Frank, 2002. "Individual effects and dynamics in count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 113-131, May.
    9. Francesco Quatraro, 2009. "Innovation, structural change and productivity growth: evidence from Italian regions, 1980--2003," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(5), pages 1001-1022, September.
    10. Chadha, Alka, 2009. "TRIPs and patenting activity: Evidence from the Indian pharmaceutical industry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 499-505, March.
    11. Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2000. "Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 339-354, October.
    12. José M. Labeaga & Ester Martínez Ros, "undated". "Persistence and ability in the innovation decisions," Working Papers 2005-16, FEDEA.
    13. Smith, V. Kerry & van Houtven, George & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., 1999. "Benefit Transfer as Preference Calibration," Discussion Papers 10607, Resources for the Future.
    14. Janet Lutz* & Jeffrey Englin & J. Shonkwiler, 2000. "On the Aggregate Value of Recreational Activities: A Nested Price Index Approach Using Poisson Demand Systems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(3), pages 217-226, March.
    15. Hocheol Jeon & Joseph A. Herriges, 2017. "Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1053-1086, December.
    16. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    17. Beneito, Pilar & Rochina-Barrachina, María Engracia & Sanchis, Amparo, 2015. "The path of R&D efficiency over time," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 57-69.
    18. 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.
    19. Alexandre Almeida & Aurora A.C. Teixeira, 2007. "Does Patenting negatively impact on R&D investment?An international panel data assessment," FEP Working Papers 255, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    20. Christopher D. Azevedo & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2003. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences: Consistency Tests and Their Interpretations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(3), pages 525-537.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:7:y:1996:i:2:p:133-147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.