IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea01/20772.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Perceived Hazard And Product Choice: An Application To Recreational Site Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Jakus, Paul M.
  • Shaw, W. Douglass

Abstract

This study improves upon the standard "dummy variable" approach to modeling fish consumption advisories by jointly estimating a "perceived hazard" model and a site choice model. The perceived hazard model overcomes the shortcomings of the dummy variable model, namely that all anglers respond equally to advisories and that all anglers know of and believe the advisories. We find that anglers' perceived hazards associated with consumption advisories do affect product (recreational site) choice. Anglers' perceptions also affect welfare measures, where the benefits of contaminant removal follow a more reasonable pattern than that of the dummy variable approach. The joint perceived hazard/product choice model is applicable to a wide variety of risky choices with which consumers are faced.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakus, Paul M. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2001. "Perceived Hazard And Product Choice: An Application To Recreational Site Choice," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20772, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea01:20772
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.20772
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/20772/files/sp01ja01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.20772?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Montgomery & Michael Needelman, 1997. "The Welfare Effects of Toxic Contamination in Freshwater Fish," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 211-223.
    2. Morey, Edward R. & Waldman, Donald M., 1998. "Measurement Error in Recreation Demand Models: The Joint Estimation of Participation, Site Choice, and Site Characteristics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 262-276, May.
    3. Breffle, William S. & Morey, Edward R. & Waldman, Donald M., 2000. "Combining Sources of Data in the Estimation of Consumer Preferences: Estimating Damages to Anglers from Environmental Injuries," Western Region Archives 321671, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    4. 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.
    5. W. Kip Viscusi & William N. Evans, 1998. "Estimation Of Revealed Probabilities And Utility Functions For Product Safety Decisions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 28-33, February.
    6. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1999. "Smoking Status and Public Responses to Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(2), pages 250-270, October.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Jill J. McCluskey & Gordon C. Rausser, 2001. "Estimation of Perceived Risk and Its Effect on Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 42-55.
    11. Viscusi, W Kip, 1989. "Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 235-263, September.
    12. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    13. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    14. Jakus, Paul M. & Downing, Mark & Bevelhimer, Mark S. & Fly, J. Mark, 1997. "Do Sportfish Consumption Advisories Affect Reservoir Anglers’ Site Choice?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 196-204, October.
    15. Heng Z. Chen & Stephen R. Cosslett, 1998. "Environmental Quality Preference and Benefit Estimation in Multinomial Probit Models: A Simulation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 512-520.
    16. Train, Kenneth & McFadden, Daniel & Johnson, Reed, 2000. "Discussion of Morey and Waldman's "Measurement Error in Recreation Demand Models"," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 76-81, July.
    17. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    18. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    19. Paul M. Jakus & Dimitrios Dadakas & J. Mark Fly, 1998. "Fish Consumption Advisories: Incorporating Angler-Specific Knowledge, Habits, and Catch Rates in a Site Choice Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1019-1024.
    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. Thuy Truong & Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter C. Boxall, 2018. "Modelling the Effect of Chronic Wasting Disease on Recreational Hunting Site Choice Preferences and Choice Set Formation over Time," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 271-295, May.
    2. Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C. & Parsons, George R. & Price, Jammie, 2010. "Effects of information about invasive species on risk perception and seafood demand by gender and race," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 586-599, November.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Eric T. Schultz & Kathleen Segerson & Elena Y. Besedin & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2012. "Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(1), pages 102-120.
    4. Lea Nicita & W. Douglass Shaw & Giovanni Signorello, 2018. "Valuing the Benefits of Rock Climbing and the Welfare Gains from Decreasing Injury Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2258-2274, November.
    5. Thomas Lundhede & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Nick Hanley & Niels Strange & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2015. "Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 296-316.
    6. Krupnick, Alan & McGuinness, Meghan & Jakus, Paul, 2002. "The Benefits and Costs of Fish Consumption Advisories for Mercury," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-55, Resources for the Future.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 98-118, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Cash, Sean B. & Lacanilao, Ryan D. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Raine, Kim, 2008. "An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Fat Taxes: Prices Effects, Food Stigma, and Information Effects on Economics Instruments to Improve Dietary Health," Consumer and Market Demand Network Papers 45499, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    10. Johnston, Robert J. & Segerson, Kathleen & Schultz, Eric T. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2011. "Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1946-1956, September.
    11. W. Douglass Shaw & Mark Walker & Marnee Benson, 2005. "Treating and Drinking Well Water in the Presence of Health Risks from Arsenic Contamination: Results from a U.S. Hot Spot," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1531-1543, December.
    12. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Hiking in the Alps: Exploring Substitution Patterns of Hiking Destinations," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(2), pages 263-282, June.
    13. Thomann, Christian & Pascalau, Razvan & Schulenburg, J.-Matthias Graf von der & Gas, Bruno, 2007. "Corporate Management of Highly Dynamic Risks: The Case of Terrorism Insurance in Germany," MPRA Paper 7221, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    3. Jakus, Paul M. & Dowell, Paula & Murray, Matthew N., 2000. "The Effect Of Fluctuating Water Levels On Reservoir Fishing," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-13, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. Mary Riddel & W. Shaw, 2006. "A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 131-150, March.
    8. Massey, D. Matthew & Newbold, Stephen C. & Gentner, Brad, 2006. "Valuing water quality changes using a bioeconomic model of a coastal recreational fishery," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 482-500, July.
    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. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    11. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    12. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    13. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    14. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Utility Measurement in Integrative Negotiation," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15.
    15. Bruno S. Frey & Matthias Benz, 2004. "From Imperialism to Inspiration: A Survey of Economics and Psychology," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & Alain Marciano & Jochen Runde (ed.), The Elgar Companion To Economics and Philosophy, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2015. "Fanning-Out or Fanning-In? Continuous or Discontinuous? Estimating Indifference Curves Inside the Marschak-Machina Triangle using Certainty Equivalents," MPRA Paper 63965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    18. Huhtala, Anni & Pouta, Eija, 2006. "Discerning welfare impacts of public provision of recreation areas," Discussion Papers 11860, MTT Agrifood Research Finland.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    21. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 77-91, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aaea01:20772. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (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.