IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205653.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating Recreation Demand When Survey Responses are Rounded

Author

Listed:
  • Page, Ian B.
  • Lichtenberg, Erik
  • Saavoss, Monica

Abstract

Recall data of consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, fresh fruits and vegetables; visits to recreational sites, doctors’ offices, and local businesses; household expenditures; and individuals’ perceived probabilities of future events often contain reported numbers that appear to be rounded to nearby focal points (e.g., the closest 5 or 10). Failure to address this rounding has been show to produce biased estimates of marginal effects and willingness to pay. We investigate the relative performance of three count data models used with data of the kind typically found in recreation demand studies. We create a dataset based on observed recreational trip counts and associated trip costs that exhibits substantial rounding. We then conduct a Monte Carlo simulation exercise to compare estimated parameters, the average partial effect on an increase in trip cost, and average consumer surplus per trip for three alternative estimators: a standard Poisson model with no adjustment for rounding, a censored Poisson model, and the grouped Poisson model. The standard Poisson model with no adjustment for rounding exhibits significant, persistent bias, especially in estimates of average consumer surplus per trip. The grouped Poisson, in contrast, shows only slight biases and none at all in estimates of average consumer surplus per trip.

Suggested Citation

  • Page, Ian B. & Lichtenberg, Erik & Saavoss, Monica, 2015. "Estimating Recreation Demand When Survey Responses are Rounded," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205653, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205653
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205653/files/2015%20AAEA%20Final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205653?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. Martin Browning & Thomas F. Crossley & Guglielmo Weber, 2003. "Asking consumption questions in general purpose surveys," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(491), pages 540-567, November.
    2. Blair, Edward & Burton, Scot, 1987. "Cognitive Processes Used by Survey Respondents to Answer Behavioral Frequency Questions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(2), pages 280-288, September.
    3. Peter G. Moffatt & Simon A. Peters, 2000. "Grouped zero-inflated count data models of coital frequency," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 13(2), pages 205-220.
    4. Manski, Charles F. & Molinari, Francesca, 2010. "Rounding Probabilistic Expectations in Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 28(2), pages 219-231.
    5. John Roberts & Devon Brewer, 2001. "Measures and tests of heaping in discrete quantitative distributions," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(7), pages 887-896.
    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. Ian B. Page & Erik Lichtenberg & Monica Saavoss, 2020. "Estimating Willingness to Pay from Count Data When Survey Responses are Rounded," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(3), pages 657-675, March.
    2. Gibson, John & Kim, Bonggeun, 2015. "Hicksian separability does not hold over space: Implications for the design of household surveys and price questionnaires," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 34-40.
    3. Joachim De Weerdt & John Gibson & Kathleen Beegle, 2020. "What Can We Learn from Experimenting with Survey Methods?," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 431-447, October.
    4. Savignac, Frédérique & Arrondel, Luc & Lamarche, Pierre, 2015. "Wealth effects on consumption across the wealth distribution: empirical evidence," Working Paper Series 1817, European Central Bank.
    5. Pindyck, Robert S., 2019. "The social cost of carbon revisited," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 140-160.
    6. Cristina Barceló, 2008. "The impact of alternative imputation methods on the measurement of income and wealth: Evidence from the Spanish survey of household finances," Working Papers 0829, Banco de España.
    7. Joan Costa-Font & Cristina Vilaplana-Prieto, 2022. "Biased survival expectations and behaviours: Does domain specific information matter?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 285-317, December.
    8. Bruce Headey, 2008. "Poverty Is Low Consumption and Low Wealth, Not Just Low Income," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 23-39, October.
    9. Teo, Thompson S. H. & Lim, Vivien K. G. & Lai, Raye Y. C., 1999. "Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-37, February.
    10. Marta Lachowska, 2013. "Expenditure, Confidence, and Uncertainty: Identifying Shocks to Consumer Confidence Using Daily Data," Upjohn Working Papers 13-197, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    11. Alan B. Krueger & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Norbert Schwarz & Arthur A. Stone, 2009. "National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time Use and Well-Being, pages 9-86, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Markus Prior & Arthur Lupia, 2005. "What Citizens Know Depends on How You Ask Them: Experiments on Time, Money and Political Knowledge," Experimental 0510001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measures Of Family Decision Processes For Econometric Analysis Of Schooling Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 81-99, January.
    14. Binder, Carola C., 2017. "Measuring uncertainty based on rounding: New method and application to inflation expectations," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1-12.
    15. Breitmoser, Yves, 2016. "Stochastic choice, systematic mistakes and preference estimation," MPRA Paper 72779, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Arslan, Ruben C. & Brümmer, Martin & Dohmen, Thomas & Drewelies, Johanna & Hertwig, Ralph & Wagner, Gert G., 2020. "How people know their risk preference," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10.
    17. Mueller, Elisabeth, 2008. "How does owners' exposure to idiosyncratic risk influence the capital structure of private companies?," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 185-198, March.
    18. Manski, Charles F. & Neri, Claudia, 2013. "First- and second-order subjective expectations in strategic decision-making: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 232-254.
    19. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    20. Joachim Winter & Amelie Wuppermann, 2014. "Do They Know What Is At Risk? Health Risk Perception Among The Obese," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 564-585, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea15:205653. 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.