IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/thkase/338453.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity of Internet-based Stated Preference Data in Modeling Waterfall Recreation Site Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Kamolthip, Sarun
  • Seenprachawong, Udomsak

Abstract

This study aims to validate the use of stated preference (SP) data collected from self-administeredinternet survey in modeling recreational demand. Variety of tests and measures are conducted to test whether the internet SP data yields consistent information with in-person interview SP data. The probabilistic conditional logit model is used to analyze waterfall site choices of day-trip recreationists. For preference homogeneity test, the underlying preference structure of the internet SP data is not statistically different from that observed from revealed preference (RP) data, whereas the underlying preference structure observed from the SP data - which was a part of the RP survey - is not always the same as that observed from the RP data. For predictive ability test, variety of tests and measures indicate that the in-person interview SP data is not always superior to the internet SP data. With the caveat of confounding sample frames, the findings of both tests consistently suggest that the recreational site choice models that use in-person interview SP data are not always superior to the models that use internet SP data. Our findings do not support what is often assumed that the SP survey which administers in-person would provide superior data quality. The study indicates a great potential of internet survey as an alternative survey mode for the hypothetical study of recreational demand

Suggested Citation

  • Kamolthip, Sarun & Seenprachawong, Udomsak, 2016. "Validity of Internet-based Stated Preference Data in Modeling Waterfall Recreation Site Choice," Asian Journal of Applied Economics, Kasetsart University, Center for Applied Economics Research, vol. 23(2), December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:thkase:338453
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.338453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/338453/files/31.Vol23Issue2_p48-74.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.338453?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. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1984. "Multiple site demand models. Part II: Review of existing models and development of new models," CUDARE Working Papers 6208, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Manski, Charles F & Lerman, Steven R, 1977. "The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(8), pages 1977-1988, November.
    3. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    4. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    5. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    6. M. K. Haener & P. C. Boxall & W. L. Adamowicz, 2001. "Modeling Recreation Site Choice: Do Hypothetical Choices Reflect Actual Behavior?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 629-642.
    7. Daniel McFadden, 1996. "On the Analysis of "Intercept & Follow" Surveys," Working Papers _012, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
    8. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    9. Joel L. Horowitz & Jordan J. Louviere, 1993. "Testing Predicted Choices Against Observations in Probabilistic Discrete-Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 270-279.
    10. Andrew Collins & John Rose & Stephane Hess, 2012. "Interactive stated choice surveys: a study of air travel behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 55-79, January.
    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. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
    3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2004. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare - transportation of farm animals to slaughter versus the use of mobile abattoirs," Working Papers in Economics 149, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    4. Thijs Dekker & Paul Koster & Roy Brouwer, 2014. "Changing with the Tide: Semiparametric Estimation of Preference Dynamics," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 717-745.
    5. Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 419-443, September.
    6. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    7. Skeie, Magnus Aa. & Lindhjem, Henrik & Skjeflo, Sofie & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Smartphone and tablet effects in contingent valuation web surveys – No reason to worry?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    8. von Haefen, Roger H. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2008. "Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: A combined revealed and stated preference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 19-32, July.
    9. Birol, Ekin & Kontoleon, Andreas & Smale, Melinda, 2006. "Combining revealed and stated preference methods to assess the private value of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian home gardens:," EPTD discussion papers 156, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Jed J. Cohen & Johannes Reichl, 2022. "Comparing Internet and phone survey mode effects across countries and research contexts," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(1), pages 44-71, January.
    12. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    13. John C. Whitehead & Andrew Ropicki & John Loomis & Sherry Larkin & Tim Haab & Sergio Alvarez, 2023. "Estimating the benefits to Florida households from avoiding another Gulf oil spill using the contingent valuation method: Internal validity tests with probability‐based and opt‐in samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 705-720, June.
    14. Holmes, Thomas P. & Boyle, Kevin J., 2004. "Dynamic Learning And Context-Dependence In Sequential, Attribute-Based Contingent Valuation," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20014, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    16. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    17. Anna Alberini & Patrizia Riganti & Alberto Longo, 2003. "Can People Value the Aesthetic and Use Services of Urban Sites? Evidence from a Survey of Belfast Residents," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 193-213, November.
    18. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    19. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    20. Bhattacharyya, Aditi & Kutlu, Levent & Sickles, Robin C., 2018. "Pricing Inputs and Outputs: Market prices versus shadow prices, market power, and welfare analysis," Working Papers 18-009, Rice University, Department of Economics.

    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:thkase:338453. 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/darkuth.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.