IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v45y2010i1p91-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands

Author

Listed:
  • John Whitehead

    ()

  • Daniel Phaneuf
  • Christopher Dumas
  • Jim Herstine
  • Jeffery Hill
  • Bob Buerger

Abstract

We consider the convergent validity of several demand models using beach recreation data. Two models employ multiple site data: a count data demand system model and the Kuhn-Tucker demand system model. We explore the role of existing variation in beach width in explaining trip choices, and analyze a hypothetical 100 foot increase in beach width. We compare these models to a single equation model where we jointly estimate revealed and stated preference trip data, and focus on a hypothetical scenario considering a 100 foot increase in beach width. In each case we develop estimates of the change in beach visits and the welfare impacts from the increase in width. The trip change estimates from two of the three models are similar and convergent valid, though the willingness to pay estimates differ in magnitude. Key Words: Recreation Demand, Travel Cost Method, Convergent Validity
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:45:y:2010:i:1:p:91-112
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-009-9307-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-009-9307-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. 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. Daniel J. Phaneuf & Catherine L. Kling & Joseph A. Herriges, 2000. "Estimation and Welfare Calculations in a Generalized Corner Solution Model with an Application to Recreation Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 83-92, February.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Kling, Catherine L. & Bockstael, Nancy & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1987. "Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a Recreational Demand Framework," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1594, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Larson, Douglas M., 1991. "Recovering weakly complementary preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 97-108, September.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    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. Hynes, Stephen & Greene, William, 2011. "Estimating recreation demand with on-site panel data: An application of a latent class truncated and endogenously stratified count data model," Working Papers 148925, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, National University of Ireland, Galway.
    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. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do US Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A discrete choice experiment of Lake Erie recreational anglers," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 17-wp573, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. repec:eee:regeco:v:68:y:2018:i:c:p:23-35 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Maciej Sobolewski & Michał Paliński, 2017. "How much consumers value on-line privacy? Welfare assessment of new data protection regulation (GDPR)," Working Papers 2017-17, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Phillips, Yvonne, 2011. "When the Tide is High: Estimating the Welfare Impact of Coastal Erosion Management," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115414, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Recreation demand; Travel cost method; Convergent validity; Revealed preference; Stated preference;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:kap:enreec:v:45:y:2010:i:1:p:91-112. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.