Addressing onsite sampling in recreation site choice models
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.
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.
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.:
- James Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano, 2004.
"Using Matching, Instrumental Variables, and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models,"
The Review of Economics and Statistics,
MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 30-57, February.
- James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano, 2003. "Using Matching, Instrumental Variables and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 9497, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Heckman, James & Navarro-Lozano, Salvador, 2003. "Using matching, instrumental variables and control functions to estimate economic choice models," Working Paper Series 2003:4, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 104-112, February.
- 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.
- Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2000.
"Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score,"
NBER Technical Working Papers
0251, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- Guido Imbens, 2000. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1166, Econometric Society.
- 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.
- Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 1998. "Propensity Score Matching Methods for Non-experimental Causal Studies," NBER Working Papers 6829, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- Aviv Nevo, 2001. "Using Weights to Adjust for Sample Selection When Auxiliary Information is Available," NBER Technical Working Papers 0275, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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 715-719, November.
- Cosslett, Stephen R, 1981. "Maximum Likelihood Estimator for Choice-Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(5), pages 1289-1316, September.
- repec:mpr:mprres:4780 is not listed on IDEAS
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
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: (Dana Niculescu)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.