IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

It's not where you do it, it's who you do it with?

  • Morey, Edward R.
  • Kritzberg, David

Individuals often recreate with others, but models of recreation-site choice (which ski area, climbing route, golf course, or bike trail) ignore the social aspect—a trait they share with most choice models. Site-choice models seek to explain site choice as a function of only the cost of visiting each site, the physical characteristics of the sites, income, and other characteristics of the individual. They ignore the influence of others on site choice. We find, using choice experiments, that having a companion and the companion's relative ability are critical determinants of site choice—what social psychology would predict. One will often choose a site less preferred in terms of its costs and characteristics if one has a companion of one's ability at the lesser site but not at the better site. Companions of comparable ability are preferred over companions that are better or worse. And, importantly, how one values the physical characteristics of sites depends on whether one has a companion. The magnitudes of our estimated companion effects suggest recreation-demand models that ignore them, all do, omit a critical endogenous variable. An implication is that observed trip patterns can be generated by social-interaction game playing (“where I go depends on where you go and …”), not utility maximization in isolation. This paper does not model the game; it estimates a recreator's utility/reaction function with companion effects, showing the importance of the social component.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534513000055
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of choice modelling.

Volume (Year): 5 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 176-191

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:5:y:2012:i:3:p:176-191
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling

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.:

as in new window
  1. Kaoru, Yoshiaki, 1995. "Measuring marine recreation benefits of water quality improvements by the nested random utility model," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 119-136, August.
  2. Pollak, Robert A, 1976. "Interdependent Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(3), pages 309-20, June.
  3. Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand & Erzo F.P. Luttmer, 1998. "Network Effects and Welfare Cultures," Working papers 98-21, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  4. Munshi, Kaivan & Myaux, Jacques, 2006. "Social norms and the fertility transition," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 1-38, June.
  5. Therese C. Grijalva & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Paul M. Jakus & W. Douglass Shaw, 2002. "Valuing the Loss of Rock Climbing Access in Wilderness Areas: A National-Level, Random-Utility Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 103-120.
  6. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando & Englin, Jeffrey E., 2001. "Testing For Differential Effects Of Forest Fires On Hiking And Mountain Biking Demand And Benefits," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(02), December.
  7. Brock, William A. & Durlauf, Steven N., 2001. "Interactions-based models," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 54, pages 3297-3380 Elsevier.
  8. Chapman, David J. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2000. "Environmental damages in court: the "American trader" case," CUDARE Working Paper Series 913, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy.
  9. Brian Krauth, 2006. "Social interactions in small groups," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 414-433, May.
  10. Kenneth E. McConnell, 1977. "Congestion and Willingness to Pay: A Study of Beach Use," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 53(2), pages 185-195.
  11. Boxall, Peter C. & Rollins, Kimberly S. & Englin, Jeffrey E., 2002. "Heterogeneous Preferences For Congestion During A Wilderness Experience," Working Papers 34133, University of Guelph, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics.
  12. George J. Borjas, 1991. "Ethnic Capital and Intergenerational Mobility," NBER Working Papers 3788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  13. Matthew O. Jackson & Alison Watts, 2000. "On the Formation of Interaction Networks in Social Coordination Games," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0778, Econometric Society.
  14. Brock,W.A. & Durlauf,S.N., 2002. "A multinomial choice model of neighborhood effects," Working papers 4, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
  15. Durlauf,S.N., 2000. "A framework for the study of individual behavior and social interactions," Working papers 16, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
  16. Veblen, Thorstein, 1899. "The Theory of the Leisure Class," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number veblen1899.
  17. Goyal, Sanjeev & Vega-Redondo, Fernando, 2005. "Network formation and social coordination," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 178-207, February.
  18. Bruce Sacerdote, 2001. "Peer Effects With Random Assignment: Results For Dartmouth Roommates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 116(2), pages 681-704, May.
  19. Hojman, Daniel A. & Szeidl, Adam, 2006. "Endogenous networks, social games, and evolution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 112-130, April.
  20. Frank J. Cesario, 1980. "Congestion and the Valuation of Recreation Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 56(3), pages 329-338.
  21. Brock,W.A. & Durlauf,S.N., 2000. "Discrete choice with social interactions," Working papers 7, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
  22. Timmins, Christopher & Murdock, Jennifer, 2007. "A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 230-249, March.
  23. Charles F. Manski, 2000. "Economic Analysis of Social Interactions," NBER Working Papers 7580, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  24. Chapman, David J. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2000. "Environmental Damages in Court: The American Trader Case," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt3hn320jh, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
  25. Shaw, W. Douglass & Jakus, Paul M., 1996. "Travel Cost Models Of The Demand For Rock Climbing," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(2), October.
  26. Morey, Edward R., 1985. "Characteristics, consumer surplus, and new activities : A proposed ski area," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 221-236, March.
  27. Evans, William N & Oates, Wallace E & Schwab, Robert M, 1992. "Measuring Peer Group Effects: A Study of Teenage Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 966-91, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:5:y:2012:i:3:p:176-191. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.