IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v82y2000i3p515-526.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Brand Choice and Purchase Frequency Revisited: An Application to Recreation Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • W. Douglas Shaw
  • J. Scott Shonkwiler

Abstract

The role that total purchases play in determining the choice among brands has been considered in microeconomic theory for quite some time, but for traditional goods only. Consumption of outdoor recreation is an unusual good, most often measured using an individual's recreational trip. Adding the trips made on a number of choice occasions seems the obvious way to aggregate this good, but doing so leads to several problems in defining a meaningful price index. The Hicks-Leontief conditions for aggregation suggest that trips to destinations may be thought of as brand choices on consumption occasions, andthe continuous analogue to total purchases may in fact be the individual's total travel. An empirical example of the model is used to estimate welfare impacts for a group of anglers. Copyright 2000, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • W. Douglas Shaw & J. Scott Shonkwiler, 2000. "Brand Choice and Purchase Frequency Revisited: An Application to Recreation Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 515-526.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:82:y:2000:i:3:p:515-526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/0002-9092.00043
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jakus, Paul M & Shaw, W Douglass, 2003. "Perceived Hazard and Product Choice: An Application to Recreational Site Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 77-92, January.
    2. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2004. "What's the use? welfare estimates from revealed preference models when weak complementarity does not hold," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 55-70, January.
    3. Ancev, Tihomir & Stoecker, Arthur L. & Storm, Daniel E. & White, Michael J., 2006. "The Economics of Efficient Phosphorus Abatement in a Watershed," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Jakus, Paul M. & McGuinness, Meghan & Krupnick, Alan J., 2002. "The Benefits and Costs of Fish Consumption Advisories for Mercury," Discussion Papers 10853, Resources for the Future.
    5. Douglas J. MacNair & William H. Desvousges, 2007. "The Economics of Fish Consumption Advisories: Insights from Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 600-616.
    6. Anni Huhtala & Eija Pouta, 2009. "Benefit Incidence of Public Recreation Areas—Have the Winners Taken Almost All?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(1), pages 63-79, May.
    7. Huhtala, Anni & Pouta, Eija, 2006. "Discerning welfare impacts of public provision of recreation areas," Discussion Papers 11860, MTT Agrifood Research Finland.
    8. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.

    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:82:y:2000:i:3:p:515-526. 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.