IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/13-wp540.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling Recreation Demand when the Access Point is Unknown

Author

Abstract

The task of modeling the recreation demand for geographically large sites, such as rivers and beaches or large parks with multiple entrances, is often challenged by incomplete information regarding the access point used by the individual. Traditionally, analysts have relied upon convenient approximations, defining travel time and travel distances on the basis of the midpoint of a river or beach segment or on the basis of the nearest access point to the site for each individual. In this paper, we instead treat the problem as one of aggregation, drawing upon and generalizing results from the aggregation literature. The resulting model yields a consistent framework for incorporating information on site characteristics and travel costs gathered at a finer level than that used to obtain trip counts. We use a series of Monte Carlo experiments to illustrate the performance of the traditional mid-point and nearest access point approximations. Our results suggest that, while the nearest access point approach provides a relatively good approximation to underlying preferences for a wide range of parameter specifications, use of the midpoint approach to calculating travel cost can lead to significant bias in the travel cost parameter and corresponding welfare calculations. Finally, we use our approach in modeling recreation demand for the major river systems in Iowa using data from the 2009 Iowa Rivers and River Corridors Survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongjie Ji & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2013. "Modeling Recreation Demand when the Access Point is Unknown," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 13-wp540, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:13-wp540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/13wp540.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=1208
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of 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. Yoshiaki Kaoru & V. Kerry Smith & Jin Long Liu, 1995. "Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 141-151.
    3. George R. Parsons & GAndrew J. Plantinga & GKevin J. Boyle, 2000. "Narrow Choice Sets in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 86-99.
    4. Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Rabotyagov, Sergey S., 2006. "Estimation of a binary choice model with grouped choice data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 170-175, February.
    5. Joseph A. Herriges & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2002. "Inducing Patterns of Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Models of Recreation Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1076-1090.
    6. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & Matthew P. McGivney, 1983. "The Opportunity Cost of Travel Time in Recreation Demand Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(3), pages 259-278.
    7. Kling, Catherine L. & Herriges, Joseph A., 1997. "Model Performance of Nested Logit Models when Welfare Estimation is the Goal, The," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12331, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. M. K. Haener & P. C. Boxall & W. L. Adamowicz & D. H. Kuhnke, 2004. "Aggregation Bias in Recreation Site Choice Models: Resolving the Resolution Problem," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(4).
    9. Murdock, Jennifer, 2006. "Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-25, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Peter M. Feather, 1994. "Sampling and Aggregation Issues in Random Utility Model Estimation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 772-780.
    12. 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.
    13. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2002. "Inducing Patterns Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Model of Recreation Demand," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5035, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    15. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    16. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    17. George R. Parsons & A. Brett Hauber, 1998. "Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 32-48.
    18. John A. Downing, 2009. "Valuing Water Quality as a Function of Water Quality Measures," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 106-123.
    19. Dan Phaneuf, 2000. "Choice Set Definition Issues in a Kuhn-Tucker Model of Recreation Demand," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1821, Econometric Society.
    20. George R. Parsons & Michael S. Needelman, 1992. "Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(4), pages 418-433.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David A. Keiser, 2018. "The Missing Benefits of Clean Water and the Role of Mismeasured Pollution," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 18-wp581, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    2. Keiser, David A., 2018. "The Missing Benefits of Clean Water and the Role of Mismeasured Pollution," ISU General Staff Papers 201806290700001048, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Reeling, Carson & Verdier, Valentin & Lupi, Frank, 2016. "Valuing Natural Resources Allocated by Dynamic Lottery," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235673, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. 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.
    2. Stafford, Tess M., 2018. "Accounting for outside options in discrete choice models: An application to commercial fishing effort," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 159-179.
    3. von Haefen, Roger H. & Domanski, Adam, 2018. "Estimation and welfare analysis from mixed logit models with large choice sets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 101-118.
    4. Babatunde O. Abidoye & Joseph A. Herriges & Justin L. Tobias, 2012. "Controlling for Observed and Unobserved Site Characteristics in RUM Models of Recreation Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1070-1093.
    5. Backstrom, Jesse D. & Woodward, Richard T., 2017. "Using Qualitative Site Characteristics Data in Marine Recreational Fishing Models: A New Site Aggregation Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258276, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Newbold, Stephen C. & Massey, D. Matthew, 2010. "Recreation demand estimation and valuation in spatially connected systems," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 222-240, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Abidoye, Babatunde Oluwakayode, 2010. "Bayesian inference in modeling recreation demand," ISU General Staff Papers 201001010800002496, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. 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).
    10. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    11. 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).
    12. Mette Termansen & Colin J McClean & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2004. "Recreational Site Choice Modelling Using High-Resolution Spatial Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(6), pages 1085-1099, June.
    13. Babatunde Abidoye & Joseph Herriges, 2012. "Model Uncertainty in Characterizing Recreation Demand," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 251-277, October.
    14. Fan, Wenran & Ji, Yongjie & Zhang, Wendong, 2022. "Recreational benefit disparity? Evidence from underrepresented population in Iowa," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322536, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Richard T. Melstrom & Deshamithra H. W. Jayasekera, 2017. "Two-Stage Estimation to Control for Unobservables in a Recreation Demand Model with Unvisited Sites," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 328-341.
    17. Yip, Arthur H.C. & Michalek, Jeremy J. & Whitefoot, Kate S., 2018. "On the implications of using composite vehicles in choice model prediction," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 163-188.
    18. Catalina M. Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," DEA Working Papers 65, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    19. Thiene, Mara & Swait, Joffre & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2017. "Choice set formation for outdoor destinations: The role of motivations and preference discrimination in site selection for the management of public expenditures on protected areas," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 152-173.
    20. 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).
    21. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    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:ias:cpaper:13-wp540. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.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.