IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A Panel Travel Cost Model Accounting for Endogenous Stratification and Truncation: A Latent Class Approach

Listed author(s):
  • Stephen Hynes
  • William Greene

In this paper, we develop a panel data negative binomial count model that corrects for endogenous stratification and truncation. We also incorporate a latent class structure into our panel specification, which assumes that the observations are drawn from a finite number of segments, where the distributions differ in the intercept and the coefficients of the explanatory variables. The paper argues that count data panel models corrected for on-site sampling may still be inadequate and potentially misleading if the population of interest is heterogeneous with respect to the impact of the chosen explanatory variables.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/89/1/177
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 look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 89 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 177-192

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:89:y:2013:i:1:p:177-192
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Wang, Peiming & Cockburn, Iain M & Puterman, Martin L, 1998. "Analysis of Patent Data--A Mixed-Poisson-Regression-Model Approach," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 16(1), pages 27-41, January.
  2. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
  3. W. Douglass Shaw & Peter Feather, 1999. "Possibilities for Including the Opportunity Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Systems," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 592-602.
  4. Shaw, W. Douglass & Jakus, Paul M., 1996. "Travel Cost Models Of The Demand For Rock Climbing," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(2), October.
  5. 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.
  6. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
  7. Daniel Hellerstein & Robert Mendelsohn, 1993. "A Theoretical Foundation for Count Data Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 604-611.
  8. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
  9. Winkelmann, Rainer, 2000. " Seemingly Unrelated Negative Binomial Regression," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 62(4), pages 553-560, September.
  10. William H. Greene, 1994. "Accounting for Excess Zeros and Sample Selection in Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models," Working Papers 94-10, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
  11. 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.
  12. Kenneth A. Baerenklau, 2010. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Endogenous Spatial Sorting in Zonal Recreation Demand Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 800-816.
  13. Klaus Moeltner & J. Scott Shonkweiler, 2007. "Intercept and Recall: Examining Avidity Carryover in On-Site Collected Travel Data," Working Papers 07-014, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Economics;University of Nevada, Reno , Department of Resource Economics.
  14. Egan, Kevin & Herriges, Joseph, 2006. "Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 567-581, September.
  15. 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(02), December.
  16. Nick Hanley & David Bell & Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 2003. "Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(3), pages 273-285, March.
  17. Cathal Buckley & Stephen Hynes & Tom van Rensburg & Edel Doherty, 2009. "Walking in the Irish countryside: landowner preferences and attitudes to improved public access provision," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(8), pages 1053-1070.
  18. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2002. "Inverse probability weighted M-estimators for sample selection, attrition and stratification," CeMMAP working papers CWP11/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  19. Isabel Mendes & Isabel Proença, 2009. "Measuring the Social Recreation Per-Day Net Benefit of Wildlife Amenities of a National Park: A Count-Data Travel Cost Approach," Working Papers Department of Economics 2009/35, ISEG - School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, University of Lisbon.
  20. Morey, Edward R., 1981. "The demand for site-specific recreational activities: A characteristics approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 345-371, December.
  21. 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.
  22. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
  23. Roberto Martinez-Espineira & Joe Amoako-Tuffour, 2005. "Recreation Demand Analysis under Truncation, Overdispersion, and Endogenous Stratification: An Application to Gros Morne National Park," Econometrics 0511007, EconWPA.
  24. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
  25. Grogger, J T & Carson, Richard T, 1991. "Models for Truncated Counts," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 225-238, July-Sept.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:89:y:2013:i:1:p:177-192. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.