IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v25y2003i2p177-195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during a wilderness experience

Author

Listed:
  • Boxall, Peter
  • Rollins, Kimberly
  • Englin, Jeffrey

Abstract

This analysis breaks down the congestion levels experienced during specific parts of a wilderness canoe trip. By explicitly addressing the heterogeneity in preferences for congestion during a trip, we were able to determine the relative value canoeists place on solitude at different points of a trip. Our econometric model utilizes a random effects probit framework to efficiently estimate the welfare impacts of congestion on each trip portion. The welfare effects of congestion levels vary across wilderness areas, parts of a trip and individuals.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Boxall, Peter & Rollins, Kimberly & Englin, Jeffrey, 2003. "Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during a wilderness experience," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-195, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:25:y:2003:i:2:p:177-195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928-7655(02)00025-8
    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael, Jeffrey A. & Reiling, Stephen D., 1997. "The Role of Expectations and Heterogeneous Preferences for Congestion in the Valuation of Recreation Benefits," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 166-173, October.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    3. McConnell, K. E., 1988. "Heterogeneous preferences for congestion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 251-258, September.
    4. Loomis, John B., 1997. "Panel Estimators To Combine Revealed And Stated Preference Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Guilkey, David K. & Murphy, James L., 1993. "Estimation and testing in the random effects probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 301-317, October.
    6. Michael, Jeffrey A. & Reiling, Stephen D., 1997. "The Role Of Expectations And Heterogeneous Preferences For Congestion In The Valuation Of Recreation Benefits," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-8, October.
    7. Dorfman, Robert, 1984. "On optimal congestion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 91-106, June.
    8. Butler, J S & Moffitt, Robert, 1982. "A Computationally Efficient Quadrature Procedure for the One-Factor Multinomial Probit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 761-764, May.
    9. Freeman, A. III & Haveman, Robert M., 1977. "Congestion, quality deterioration, and heterogeneous tastes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 225-232, October.
    10. Kimberly Rollins & Will Wistowsky & Michael Jay, 1997. "Wilderness Canoeing in Ontario: Using Cumulative Results to Update Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Offer Amounts," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 45(2), pages 178-178, July.
    11. Bo Shelby, 1980. "Crowding Models for Backcountry Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 56(1), pages 43-55.
    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. Morey, Edward R. & Kritzberg, David, 2012. "It's not where you do it, it's who you do it with?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 176-191.
    2. Racevskis, Laila A. & Lupi, Frank, 2008. "Incentive Compatibility in an Attribute-Based Referendum Model," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6477, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Felipe Vásquez & Michael Hanemann, 2008. "Taste Indicators and Heterogeneous Revealed Preferences for Congestion in Recreation Demand," Working Papers 10-2008, Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Concepción.
    4. Julien Salanié & Yves Surry & Philippe Le Goffe & . Inra & . Région Bretagne & . Agrocampus-Ouest & . Métropole de Rennes, 2004. "Measuring agricultural and congestion externalities in recreational fisheries : The case of salmon in France," Post-Print hal-02831528, HAL.
    5. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    6. Wen, Le & Suomalainen, Kiti & Sharp, Basil & Yi, Ming & Sheng, Mingyue Selena, 2022. "Impact of wind-hydro dynamics on electricity price: A seasonal spatial econometric analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(PC).
    7. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    8. Kimberly Rollins & Diana Dumitras & Anita Castledine, 2008. "An Analysis of Congestion Effects Across and Within Multiple Recreation Activities," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(1), pages 95-116, March.
    9. Robert C. Fonner & Robert P. Berrens, 2014. "A Hedonic Pricing Model of Lift Tickets for US Alpine Ski Areas: Examining the Influence of Crowding," Tourism Economics, , vol. 20(6), pages 1215-1233, December.
    10. Patrizia Riganti, 2006. "Tourists’ Satisfaction Vs. Residents’ Quality of Life in Medium Sized European Cities: A Conjoint Analysis Approach for Cultural Tourism’s Impact Assessment," ERSA conference papers ersa06p678, European Regional Science Association.
    11. Brander, Luke M. & Van Beukering, Pieter & Cesar, Herman S.J., 2007. "The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 209-218, June.
    12. Eugenio-Martin, Juan L., 2011. "Assessing social carrying capacity of tourism destinations with random utility models/Evaluación de la capacidad de carga social de los destinos turísticos con modelos de utilidad aleatoria," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 29, pages 881-902, Diciembre.
    13. 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.
    14. de Palma, André & Lindsey, Robin, 2020. "Tradable permit schemes for congestible facilities with uncertain supply and demand," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 21(C).
    15. Christopher Timmins & Jennifer Murdock, 2006. "A Revealed Preference Approach to the Measurement of Congestion in Travel Cost Models," Working Papers tecipa-213, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.

    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. Kimberly Rollins & Diana Dumitras & Anita Castledine, 2008. "An Analysis of Congestion Effects Across and Within Multiple Recreation Activities," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(1), pages 95-116, March.
    2. Felipe Vásquez & Michael Hanemann, 2008. "Taste Indicators and Heterogeneous Revealed Preferences for Congestion in Recreation Demand," Working Papers 10-2008, Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Concepción.
    3. Michael, Jeffrey A. & Reiling, Stephen D., 1997. "The Role Of Expectations And Heterogeneous Preferences For Congestion In The Valuation Of Recreation Benefits," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-8, October.
    4. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Jörg Breitung & Michael Lechner, 1996. "Estimation de modèles non linéaires sur données de panel par la méthode des moments généralisés," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 126(5), pages 191-203.
    6. Aitken, Brian & Hanson, Gordon H. & Harrison, Ann E., 1997. "Spillovers, foreign investment, and export behavior," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1-2), pages 103-132, August.
    7. Inkmann, Joachim, 1997. "Circumventing multiple integration: A comparison of GMM and SML estimators for the panel probit model," Discussion Papers, Series II 339, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".
    8. Gustavo Angeles & David K. Guilkey & Thomas A. Mroz, 2005. "The Impact of Community-Level Variables on Individual-Level Outcomes," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 34(1), pages 76-121, August.
    9. Breitung, Jörg & Lechner, Michael, 1998. "Alternative GMM methods for nonlinear panel data models," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1998,81, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    10. Carling, Kenneth & Rönnegård, Lars & Roszbach, Kasper, 2004. "Is Firm Interdependence within Industries Important for Portfolio Credit Risk?," Working Paper Series 168, Sveriges Riksbank (Central Bank of Sweden).
    11. Karine Lamiraud & Pierre‐Yves Geoffard, 2007. "Therapeutic non‐adherence: a rational behavior revealing patient preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1185-1204, November.
    12. Wladimir Raymond & Pierre Mohnen & Franz Palm & Sybrand Schim van der Loeff, 2007. "The Behavior of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator of Dynamic Panel Data Sample Selection Models," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-06, CIRANO.
    13. Lindsey, Robin, 2011. "State-dependent congestion pricing with reference-dependent preferences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1501-1526.
    14. Bertschek, Irene & Lechner, Michael, 1998. "Convenient estimators for the panel probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 329-371, September.
    15. Mavromaras, Kostas & Polidano, Cain, 2011. "NILS Working paper no 165. Improving the employment rates of people with disabilities through vocational education," NILS Working Papers 26068, National Institute of Labour Studies.
    16. Mavromaras, Kostas & Polidano, Cain, 2011. "Improving the Employment Rates of People with Disabilities through Vocational Education," IZA Discussion Papers 5548, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Patrizia Riganti, 2006. "Tourists’ Satisfaction Vs. Residents’ Quality of Life in Medium Sized European Cities: A Conjoint Analysis Approach for Cultural Tourism’s Impact Assessment," ERSA conference papers ersa06p678, European Regional Science Association.
    18. Kevin F. Hallock & Craig Olson, 2006. "The Value of Stock Options to Non-Executive Employees," NBER Working Papers 11950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Inkmann, Joachim, 2000. "Misspecified heteroskedasticity in the panel probit model: A small sample comparison of GMM and SML estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 227-259, August.
    20. Heinz König & Michael Lechner, 1994. "Some Recent Developments in Microeconometrics - A Survey," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 130(III), pages 299-331, September.

    More about this item

    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:resene:v:25:y:2003:i:2:p:177-195. 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/locate/inca/505569 .

    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.