IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea01/20444.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Single Versus Multiple Objective Recreation Trips: A Split-Sample Multi-Site Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yeh, Chia-Yu
  • Sohngen, Brent
  • Habb, Timothy

Abstract

A random utility model of the choice over trip duration on multiple objective recreation trips is developed. We explore several methods for allocating trip expenses to estimate the welfare of single and multiple-objective trips. Preliminary results suggest that traditional methods for handling travel costs are inadequate in a multiple-objective setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Yeh, Chia-Yu & Sohngen, Brent & Habb, Timothy, 2001. "Single Versus Multiple Objective Recreation Trips: A Split-Sample Multi-Site Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20444, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea01:20444
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.20444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/20444/files/sp01ye02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.20444?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1997. "The Performance of Nested Logit Models When Welfare Estimation Is the Goal," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 792-802.
    2. Kling, Catherine L., 1988. "Comparing welfare estimates of environmental quality changes from recreation demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 331-340, September.
    3. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    4. Parsons George R. & Kealy Mary Jo, 1995. "A Demand Theory for Number of Trips in a Random Utility Model of Recreation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 357-367, November.
    5. Morey, Edward R. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Rowe, Robert D., 1991. "A discrete-choice model of recreational participation, site choice, and activity valuation when complete trip data are not available," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 181-201, March.
    6. Catherine L. Kling & Cynthia J. Thomson, 1996. "The Implications of Model Specification for Welfare Estimation in Nested Logit Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 103-114.
    7. Bell, Frederick W. & Leeworthy, Vernon R., 1990. "Recreational demand by tourists for saltwater beach days," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 189-205, May.
    8. Edward R. Morey & Robert D. Rowe & Michael Watson, 1993. "A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 578-592.
    9. Wilman, Elizabeth A., 1980. "The value of time in recreation benefit studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 272-286, September.
    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. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    2. Lew, Daniel K., 1999. "Multi-Purpose Trip Valuation in Recreation Demand Models: Some Methodological Approaches," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 271486, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. W. Shaw & Michael Ozog, 1999. "Modeling Overnight Recreation Trip Choice: Application of a Repeated Nested Multinomial Logit Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(4), pages 397-414, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Parsons, George R. & Jakus, Paul M. & Tomasi, Ted, 1999. "A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 143-157, September.
    6. Schwabe, Kurt A. & Schuhmann, Peter W., 1999. "The Value Of Increasing The Length Of Deer Season In Ohio," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21574, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Font, Antoni Riera, 2000. "Mass Tourism and the Demand for Protected Natural Areas: A Travel Cost Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 97-116, January.
    8. Lupi, Frank & Hoehn, John & Christie, Gavin, 1999. "Valuing Non-indigenous Species Control and Native Species Restoration in Lake Huron," Western Region Archives 321706, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    9. Crooker, John & Kling, Catherine L., 2000. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare Measures: A New Tool for Nonmarket Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 145-161, March.
    10. Lew, Daniel K. & Larson, Douglas M., 2005. "Accounting for stochastic shadow values of time in discrete-choice recreation demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 341-361, September.
    11. Donato Romano & Riccardo Scarpa & Fiorenza Spalatro & Laura Viganò, 2000. "Modelling Determinants of Participation, Number of Trips and Site Choice for Outdoor Recreation in Protected Areas," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 224-238, May.
    12. Yongjie Ji & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2016. "Modeling Recreation Demand When the Access Point Is Unknown," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 860-880.
    13. Kurt Schwabe & Peter Schuhmann & Roy Boyd & Khosrow Doroodian, 2001. "The Value of Changes in Deer Season Length: An Application of the Nested Multinomial Logit Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 131-147, June.
    14. Huang, J u-Chin & Nychka, Douglas W., 2000. "A nonparametric multiple choice method within the random utility framework," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 207-225, August.
    15. Murdock, Jennifer, 1999. "Welfare Implications of Site Aggregation: A Comparison of Conditional Logit and Random Parameters Logit Estimates," Western Region Archives 321715, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    16. Phaneuf, Daniel James, 1997. "Generalized corner solution models in recreation demand," ISU General Staff Papers 1997010108000013022, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Larson, Douglas & Shaikh, Sabina, 1999. "Empirical Specification Requirements for Two-Constraint Models of Recreation Demand," Western Region Archives 321713, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    18. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    19. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    20. Richard Batley & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 337-366, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aaea01:20444. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.