IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v70y1988i4p892-901..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Reliability of Estimates of Environmental Benefits from Recreation Demand Models

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine L. Kling

Abstract

Recreation demand models are commonly employed tools of economists interested in valuing improvements in environmental amenities. Despite their importance, little comparative work has been undertaken to examine the ability of the models to accurately estimate welfare changes. A simulation study designed to compare the reliability of estimated welfare measures (compensating variation and consumer surplus) from several commonly employed recreation demand models is presented. Results of the study indicate that choice of functional form and model specification are important determinants of the resulting estimates of benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine L. Kling, 1988. "The Reliability of Estimates of Environmental Benefits from Recreation Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(4), pages 892-901.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:70:y:1988:i:4:p:892-901.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1241931
    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:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jeong, Hyojin & Haab, Timothy C., 2004. "The Economic Value Of Marine Recreational Fishing: Applying Benefit Transfer To Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (Mrfss)," Working Papers 28322, Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics.
    2. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Cati Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2014-07, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    4. Mark D. Agee & Thomas D. Crocker, 2002. "On Techniques to Value the Impact of Environmental Hazards on Children's Health," NCEE Working Paper Series 200208, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Sep 2002.
    5. García De La Fuente, L. & Colina Vuelta, A., 2004. "Métodos directos e indirectos en la valoración económica de bienes ambientales, aplicación al valor de uso recreativo del Parque Natural de Somiedo," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 22, pages 1-26, Diciembre.
    6. Chotikapanich, Duangkamon & Griffiths, William E., 1998. "Carnarvon Gorge: a comment on the sensitivity of consumer surplus estimation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(3), pages 1-13.
    7. Li, Lianhua & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre, 2015. "The effect of choice set misspecification on welfare measures in random utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 71-92.
    8. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    9. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
    10. Larson, Douglas & Lew, Daniel & Loomis, John, 1999. "Are Revealed Preference Measures of Quality Change Benefits Statistically Significant?," Western Region Archives 321712, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    11. I. M. Dobbs, 1993. "Adjusting For Sample Selection Bias In The Individual Travel Cost Method," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 335-342, May.
    12. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Antoni Riera Font, 2008. "The implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2008/6, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    13. Alston, Julian M. & Larson, Douglas M., 1992. "Precision vs Bias in Choosing Welfare Measures," Working Papers 232414, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. English, Donald B.K., 2000. "A Simple Procedure for Generating Confidence Intervals in Tourist Spending Profiles and Resulting Economic Impacts," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-16.
    15. Akbar Marvasti, 2010. "A welfare estimation of beach recreation with aggregate data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 291-296.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:70:y:1988:i:4:p:892-901.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.