IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/nejare/29029.html

Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting

Author

Listed:
  • MacKenzie, John

Abstract

This paper develops a logit-based conjoint analysis of willingness to pay for individual attributes of deer-hunting trips. Since deer-hunting success is uncertain, willingness to pay for enhanced likelihood of bagging a deer, rather than for certain success, is evaluated. Implicit costs of recreational travel time are also evaluated from hypothetical trade-offs between travel time and trip expenditures. The valuation of travel time derived here appears to reflect more the opportunity cost of foregone hunting than the opportunity cost of foregone work. This implies that travel-cost analyses of recreational demand, which impute costs of recreational travel solely from wage data, can yield biased valuations of recreational amenities.

Suggested Citation

  • MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-9, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nejare:29029
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.29029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/29029/files/19020109.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.29029?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. Goodman, Allen C., 1989. "Identifying willingness-to-pay for heterogeneous goods with factorial survey methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 58-79, January.
    2. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    3. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop, 1988. "Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 20-28.
    4. McConnell, Kenneth E., 1979. "Values Of Marine Recreational Fishing Measurement And Impact Of Measurement," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 278310, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    7. Madansky, Albert, 1980. "On Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 37-44, July.
    8. Nancy E. Bockstael & Ivar E. Strand & W. Michael Hanemann, 1987. "Time and the Recreational Demand Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 69(2), pages 293-302.
    9. Frank J. Cesario, 1976. "Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(1), pages 32-41.
    10. Russell L. Gum & William E. Martin, 1975. "Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and Value of Rural Outdoor Recreation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 57(4), pages 558-566.
    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. Mingie, James C. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Bowker, J.M. & Mengak, Michael T. & Siry, Jacek P., 2017. "Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-106.
    2. Huang, Chung L. & Fu, Joe, 1993. "Consumer Preferences And Evaluations Of A Processed Meat Product," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 24(01), pages 1-9, February.
    3. Kim, Yusun & Reeling, Carson & Widmar, Nicole J.O. & Lee, John G., 2023. "Estimating a model of forward-looking behavior with discrete choice experiments: The case of lifetime hunting license demand," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    4. Luís Cruz & Paula Simões & Eduardo Barata, 2014. "Combining Observed and Contingent Travel Behaviour: The Best of Both Worlds?," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 7-25, December.
    5. Häggmark-Svensson, Tobias & Elofsson, Katarina & Engelmann, Marc & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "A review of the literature on benefits, costs, and policies for wildlife management," Working Paper Series 2015:1, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    6. Curtis, John & Lynch, Lori, 2001. "Explaining Deer Population Preferences: An Analysis of Farmers, Hunters and the General Public," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 44-55, April.
    7. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    8. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2001. "Theoretical And Empirical Considerations Of Eliciting Preferences And Model Estimation In Conjoint Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20680, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Holland, Daniel & Wessells, Cathy R., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Preferences for Fresh Salmon: The Influence of Safety Inspection and Production Method Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, April.
    10. Sayadi, Samir & Gonzalez Roa, M. Carmen & Calatrava Requena, Javier, 2005. "Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 539-550, December.
    11. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 238-252, October.
    12. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-8, October.
    13. Camilo Andres Garzon & Maria Catalina Rey & Paula Juliana Sarmiento & Juan Camilo Cardenas, 2016. "Fisheries, fish pollution and biodiversity: choice experiments with fishermen, traders and consumers," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(3), pages 333-353, December.

    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. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    2. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    3. Kai-Lih Chen, 1999. "Measuring values of wetlands in Taiwan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(1), pages 65-89, March.
    4. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, September.
    5. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2015. "The public’s value for developing ocean energy technology in the Republic of Korea: A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 432-439.
    6. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, June.
    7. Ricardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2006. "Utility in WTP Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," Working Papers in Economics 06/15, University of Waikato.
    8. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2018. "Inconvenience cost of mobile communication failure: The case of South Korea," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 241-252.
    9. repec:isu:genstf:1999010108000013438 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    11. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Lee, Jongsu & Shin, Jungwoo, 2015. "The economic value of South Korea׳s renewable energy policies (RPS, RFS, and RHO): A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 64-72.
    12. Souter, Ray A. & Bowker, James Michael, 1996. "A Note On Nonlinearity Bias And Dichotomous Choice Cvm: Implications For Aggregate Benefits Estimation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(01), pages 1-6.
    13. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    14. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 92(3).
    15. Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Niki Avgeraki & Stathis Klonaris, 2020. "Social desirability and the WTP–WTA disparity in common goods," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 6425-6444, October.
    16. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    17. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, August.
    18. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    19. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
    20. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    21. Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & van den Berg, Caroline & Yang, Jui-Chen & Van Houtven, George, 2006. "The use of willingness to pay experiments : estimating demand for piped water connections in Sri Lanka," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3818, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:nejare:29029. 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/nareaea.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.