Does ignoring multidestination trips in the travel cost method cause a systematic bias?
The present paper demonstrates that treating multidestination trips (MDT) as single‐destination trips does not involve any systematic upward or downward bias in consumer surplus (CS) estimates because the direct negative effect of a price increase (treating MDT as a single‐destination trip) is offset by a shift in the estimated demand curve. Still, ignoring MDT can greatly underestimate or overestimate the CS. In addition, we demonstrate that there is a sound theoretical basis for using preference information for allocating travel costs between different sites included in the MDT package. A novel extreme value approach is proposed, which does not require any overly restrictive assumptions about consumer preferences. This approach is applied to the zonal travel cost model of the Bellenden Ker National Park, Australia. Parametric and non‐parametric estimation techniques are used for calculating CS estimates, and the effects of different MDT treatments and estimation methods are compared.
Volume (Year): 48 (2004)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- K. G. Willis & G. D. Garrod, 1991. "An Individual Travel-Cost Method Of Evaluating Forest Recreation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 33-42.
- Nick Hanley & Robin Ruffell, 1992.
"The Valuation of Forest Characteristics,"
Working Papers Series
92/10, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
- Cooper, Joseph C., 1999.
"Nonparametric and Semi-Nonparametric Recreational Demand Analysis,"
24780, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Joseph C. Cooper, 2000. "Nonparametric and Semi-Nonparametric Recreational Demand Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 451-462.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:117997. 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.