IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v74y1998i1p32-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand

Author

Listed:
  • George R. Parsons
  • A. Brett Hauber

Abstract

We are concerned with the definition of choice set used in Random Utility Models of recreation demand. In particular, we are concerned with the spatial boundaries used to define choice sets. In this paper, using a model of day-trip fishing in Maine, we examine the sensitivity of parameter and welfare estimates to changes in the spatial boundary. We find that there exists some threshold distance beyond which adding more sites to the choice set has negligible effects on the estimation results.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:74:y:1998:i:1:p:32-48
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147211
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    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. repec:eee:jeeman:v:88:y:2018:i:c:p:159-179 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Zolfaghari, Alireza & Sivakumar, Aruna & Polak, John, 2013. "Simplified probabilistic choice set formation models in a residential location choice context," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 3-13.
    3. Yongjie Ji & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2016. "Modeling Recreation Demand When the Access Point Is Unknown," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 860-880.
    4. Krupnick, Alan & McGuinness, Meghan & Jakus, Paul, 2002. "The Benefits and Costs of Fish Consumption Advisories for Mercury," Discussion Papers dp-02-55, Resources For the Future.
    5. 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.
    6. Murdock, Jennifer, 2006. "Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-25, January.
    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. Scrogin, David & Hofler, Richard & Boyle, Kevin J. & Milon, J. Walter, 2004. "On The Frontier Of Generating Revealed Preference Choice Sets: An Efficient Approach," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20134, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Lilach Nachum & Srilata Zaheer & Shulamith Gross, 2008. "Does It Matter Where Countries Are? Proximity to Knowledge, Markets and Resources, and MNE Location Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1252-1265, July.
    10. Richardson, Robert B. & Loomis, John & Weiler, Stephan, 2006. "Recreation as a Spatial Good: Distance Effects on Changes in Recreation Visitation and Benefits," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 36(3), pages 362-380.
    11. Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis, 2005. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to "Don’t Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    12. Hindsley, Paul & Landry, Craig E. & Gentner, Brad, 2011. "Addressing onsite sampling in recreation site choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 95-110, July.
    13. H. Spencer Banzhaf & V. Kerry Smith, 2007. "Meta-analysis in model implementation: choice sets and the valuation of air quality improvements," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1013-1031.
    14. Hicks, Robert L. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2010. "Spatial regulations and endogenous consideration sets in fisheries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 117-134, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Vajjhala, Shalini P. & Mische John, Anna & Evans, David A., 2008. "Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods," Discussion Papers dp-08-14, Resources For the Future.
    17. Thiene, Mara & Swait, Joffre & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2017. "Choice set formation for outdoor destinations: The role of motivations and preference discrimination in site selection for the management of public expenditures on protected areas," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 152-173.
    18. repec:eee:jeeman:v:85:y:2017:i:c:p:110-129 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    20. Arturs Kalnins & Wilbur Chung, 2006. "Social Capital, Geography, and Survival: Gujarati Immigrant Entrepreneurs in the U.S. Lodging Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 233-247, February.
    21. Hicks, Robert L., 2002. "A Comparison Of Stated And Revealed Preference Methods For Fisheries Management," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19853, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    22. Larson, Douglas M. & Shaikh, Sabina L., 1999. "Empirical Specification Requirements For Two-Constraint Models Of Recreation Demand," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21629, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:uwp:landec:v:74:y:1998:i:1:p:32-48. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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 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.

    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.