IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v19y2013i3p234-248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Convergent validity between revealed and stated recreation demand data: Some empirical evidence from the Basque Country, Spain

Author

Listed:
  • Hoyos, David
  • Riera, Pere

Abstract

In a travel cost exercise, reported past visits to mount Jaizkibel, a natural area located in the Basque Country (Spain), are compared for convergent validity to stated intended future trips under the assumption that the natural resource's conditions will remain the same. In line with the results obtained by other studies, the empirical evidence of this application suggests that revealed preferences (RP) and stated preferences (SP) do not produce consistent data, i.e. do not achieve convergent validity. The paper deals with the convergent validity literature in continuous-choice studies by using two-staged count data models for recreation demand. Differences in preference structures and welfare estimates are tested assuming both common and different data generating processes for the RP and SP data.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoyos, David & Riera, Pere, 2013. "Convergent validity between revealed and stated recreation demand data: Some empirical evidence from the Basque Country, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 234-248.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:19:y:2013:i:3:p:234-248
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2013.02.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S110468991300010X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jfe.2013.02.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Parsons, George R. & Jakus, Paul M. & Tomasi, Ted, 1999. "A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 143-157, September.
    3. Michael D. Creel & John B. Loomis, 1990. "Theoretical and Empirical Advantages of Truncated Count Data Estimators for Analysis of Deer Hunting in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 434-441.
    4. Cummings, Ronald G & Elliott, Steven & Harrison, Glenn W & Murphy, James, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
    5. Maria A. Cunha-e-Sá & Maria M. Ducla-Soares & Luís C. Nunes & Philippe Polomé, 2004. "Consistency in Mixed Demand Systems: Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 444-454.
    6. Christopher D. Azevedo & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2003. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences: Consistency Tests and Their Interpretations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(3), pages 525-537.
    7. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    9. Ju-Chin Huang & Timothy C. Haab & John C. Whitehead, "undated". "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Can Revealed and Stated Preferences Data be Combined?," Working Papers 9704, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    10. Bergstrom, John C. & Teasley, R. Jeff & Cordell, H. Ken & Souter, Ray A. & English, Donald B.K., 1996. "Effects Of Reservoir Aquatic Plant Management On Recreational Expenditures And Regional Economic Activity," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Mullahy, John, 1986. "Specification and testing of some modified count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 341-365, December.
    12. Egan, Kevin & Herriges, Joseph, 2006. "Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 567-581, September.
    13. Jeffrey Englin & Trudy Cameron, 1996. "Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 133-147, March.
    14. Hoyos Ramos, David & Riera Micaló, Pere & Fernández Macho, Francisco Javier & Gallastegui Zulaika, María Carmen & García, Dolores, 2008. "Valuing environmental impacts of coastal development projects: a choice modelling application in Spain," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    15. W. Douglass Shaw, 2002. "Testing the Validity of Contingent Behavior Trip Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 401-414.
    16. 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.
    17. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    18. Winkelmann, Rainer, 1995. "Duration Dependence and Dispersion in Count-Data Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(4), pages 467-474, October.
    19. Whitehead, John C., 2005. "Combining willingness to pay and behavior data with limited information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 143-155, June.
    20. Shonkwiler, John Scott & Shaw, W. Douglass, 1996. "Hurdle Count-Data Models In Recreation Demand Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-10, December.
    21. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    22. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    23. John Whitehead & Daniel Phaneuf & Christopher Dumas & Jim Herstine & Jeffery Hill & Bob Buerger, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 91-112, January.
    24. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    25. William H. Greene, 1994. "Accounting for Excess Zeros and Sample Selection in Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models," Working Papers 94-10, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    26. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1996. "Count Data Models and the Problem of Zeros in Recreation Demand Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 89-102.
    27. Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2000. "Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 339-354, October.
    28. Morgan, O. Ashton & Huth, William L., 2011. "Using revealed and stated preference data to estimate the scope and access benefits associated with cave diving," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-118, January.
    29. R. Craig Layman & John R. Boyce & Keith R. Criddle, 1996. "Economic Valuation of the Chinook Salmon Sport Fishery of the Gulkana River, Alaska, under Current and Alternate Management Plans," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 113-128.
    30. Kling, Catherine L., 1997. "Evaluation of the Gains from Combining Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Data to Value Nonmarket Goods (An)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1598, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    31. Nick Hanley & David Bell & Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 2003. "Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(3), pages 273-285, March.
    32. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    33. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 1997. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Should Revealed and Stated Preference Data Be Combined?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 240-255, November.
    34. John Loomis, 1993. "An investigation into the reliability of intended visitation behavior," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(2), pages 183-191, April.
    35. Carpio, Carlos E. & Wohlgenant, Michael K. & Boonsaeng, Tullaya, 2008. "The Demand for Agritourism in the United States," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-16.
    36. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    37. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    38. Font, Antoni Riera, 2000. "Mass Tourism and the Demand for Protected Natural Areas: A Travel Cost Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 97-116, January.
    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. Michael Getzner & Barbara Färber & Claudia Yamu, 2016. "2D Versus 3D: The Relevance of the Mode of Presentation for the Economic Valuation of an Alpine Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Voltaire, Louinord & Koutchade, Obafèmi Philippe, 2020. "Public acceptance of and heterogeneity in behavioral beach trip responses to offshore wind farm development in Catalonia (Spain)," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Hasan, Syed M. & Akram, Agha Ali & Jeuland, Marc, 2021. "Awareness of coping costs and willingness to pay for urban drinking water service: Evidence from Lahore, Pakistan," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    4. Bottero, Marta & Bravi, Marina & Caprioli, Caterina & Dell'Anna, Federico, 2023. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences to design a new urban park in a metropolitan area of North-Western Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 483(C).
    5. Mariel, Petr & Scarpa, Riccardo & Vega-Bayo, Ainhoa, 2018. "Joint parental school choice: Exploring the influence of individual preferences of husbands and wives," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 23-35.
    6. Cheng, Li & Lupi, Frank, 2016. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Water Quality Changes to Great Lakes Beaches," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235746, 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. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Simões, Paula & Barata, Eduardo & Cruz, Luís, 2013. "Joint estimation using revealed and stated preference data: An application using a national forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 249-266.
    4. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    5. Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2000. "Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 339-354, October.
    6. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    7. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    8. Rowan, Emma & Longo, Alberto, 2009. "Enriching Stakeholder participation through Environmental Valuation; Eliciting Preferences for a National Park Designation in Northern Ireland," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51071, Agricultural Economics Society.
    9. Chin†Huang Huang, 2017. "Estimating the environmental effects and recreational benefits of cultivated flower land for environmental quality improvement in Taiwan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 29-39, January.
    10. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    11. Lienhoop, Nele & Ansmann, Till, 2011. "Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1250-1258, May.
    12. Hocheol Jeon & Joseph A. Herriges, 2017. "Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1053-1086, December.
    13. R. Martínez-Espiñeira, 2007. "‘Adopt a Hypothetical Pup’: A Count Data Approach to the Valuation of Wildlife," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(2), pages 335-360, June.
    14. Yongsik Jeon & Joseph Herriges, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Contingent Behavior Responses in Models of Recreation Demand," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 223-250, February.
    15. Landry, Craig E. & Liu, Haiyong, 2009. "A semi-parametric estimator for revealed and stated preference data--An application to recreational beach visitation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 205-218, March.
    16. Erda Wang & Jianhua Wei & Jiawei Zhu, 2017. "The effects of improving coastal park attributes on the recreation demand—A case study in Dalian China," Tourism Economics, , vol. 23(1), pages 133-149, February.
    17. John Whitehead & Daniel Phaneuf & Christopher Dumas & Jim Herstine & Jeffery Hill & Bob Buerger, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 91-112, January.
    18. Beaumais, Olivier & Appéré, Gildas, 2010. "Recreational shellfish harvesting and health risks: A pseudo-panel approach combining revealed and stated preference data with correction for on-site sampling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2315-2322, October.
    19. Massimo Filippini & William Greene & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz, 2018. "Non-market Value of Winter Outdoor Recreation in the Swiss Alps: The Case of Val Bedretto," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(3), pages 729-754, November.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Non-market valuation; Travel cost method; Revealed preferences; Stated preferences; Data pooling; Convergent validity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:eee:foreco:v:19:y:2013:i:3:p:234-248. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    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.