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

Addressing onsite sampling in recreation site choice models

  • Hindsley, Paul
  • Landry, Craig E.
  • Gentner, Brad

Independent experts and politicians have criticized statistical analyses of recreation behavior, which rely upon onsite samples due to their potential for biased inference. The use of onsite sampling usually reflects data or budgetary constraints, but can lead to two primary forms of bias in site choice models. First, the strategy entails sampling site choices rather than sampling individuals--a form of bias called endogenous stratification. Under these conditions, sample choices may not reflect the site choices of the true population. Second, exogenous attributes of the individuals sampled onsite may differ from the attributes of individuals in the population--the most common form in recreation demand is avidity bias. We propose addressing these biases by combining two the existing methods: Weighted Exogenous Stratification Maximum Likelihood estimation and propensity score estimation. We use the National Marine Fisheries Service's Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey to illustrate methods of bias reduction, employing both simulated and empirical applications. We find that propensity score based weights can significantly reduce bias in estimation. Our results indicate that failure to account for these biases can overstate anglers' willingness to pay for improvements in fishing catch, but weighted models exhibit higher variance of parameter estimates and willingness to pay.

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/S0095069611000271
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 Environmental Economics and Management.

Volume (Year): 62 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Pages: 95-110

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:62:y:2011:i:1:p:95-110
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870

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. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
  2. Manski, Charles F & Lerman, Steven R, 1977. "The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(8), pages 1977-88, November.
  3. George R. Parsons & A. Brett Hauber, 1998. "Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 32-48.
  4. repec:mpr:mprres:4780 is not listed on IDEAS
  5. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2002. "Inverse probability weighted M-estimators for sample selection, attrition and stratification," CeMMAP working papers CWP11/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  6. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1161-1189, 07.
  7. Nevo, Aviv, 2003. "Using Weights to Adjust for Sample Selection When Auxiliary Information Is Available," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 21(1), pages 43-52, January.
  8. Basar, Gözen & Bhat, Chandra, 2004. "A parameterized consideration set model for airport choice: an application to the San Francisco Bay Area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 889-904, December.
  9. Heckman, James J. & Navarro, Salvador, 2003. "Using Matching, Instrumental Variables and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models," IZA Discussion Papers 768, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  10. Klaus Moeltner & J. Scott Shonkwiler, 2005. "Correcting for On-Site Sampling in Random Utility Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 327-339.
  11. M. K. Haener & P. C. Boxall & W. L. Adamowicz & D. H. Kuhnke, 2004. "Aggregation Bias in Recreation Site Choice Models: Resolving the Resolution Problem," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(4).
  12. Cosslett, Stephen R, 1981. "Maximum Likelihood Estimator for Choice-Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(5), pages 1289-1316, September.
  13. Bierlaire, M. & Bolduc, D. & McFadden, D., 2008. "The estimation of generalized extreme value models from choice-based samples," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 381-394, May.
  14. Englin, Jeffrey & Shonkwiler, J S, 1995. "Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 104-12, February.
  15. Shaw, Daigee, 1988. "On-site samples' regression : Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 211-223, February.
  16. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
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:jeeman:v:62:y:2011:i:1:p:95-110. 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.