IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/201006020700001116.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rounding in recreation demand models: a latent class count model

Author

Listed:
  • Evans, Keith S.
  • Herriges, Joseph A.

Abstract

A commonly observed feature of visitation data, elicited via a survey instrument, is a greater propensity for individuals to report trip numbers that are multiples of 5's, relative to other possible integers (such as 3 or 6). One explanation of this phenomenon is that some survey respondents have difficulty recalling the exact number of trips taken and instead choose to round their responses. This paper examines the impact that rounding can have on the estimated demand for recreation and the bias that it may induce on subsequent welfare estimates. We propose the use of a latent class structure in which respondents are assumed to be members of either a nonrounding or a rounding class. A series of generated data experiments are provided to illustrate the range of possible impacts that ignoring rounding can have on the estimated parameters of the model and on the welfare implications from site closure. The results suggest that biases can be substantial, particularly when then unconditional mean number of trips is in the range from two to four. An illustrative application is provided using visitation data to Saylorville Lake in central Iowa.

Suggested Citation

  • Evans, Keith S. & Herriges, Joseph A., 2010. "Rounding in recreation demand models: a latent class count model," ISU General Staff Papers 201006020700001116, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:201006020700001116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3b09c724-f38c-4a85-9b7e-42bb177d7d3a/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Dominitz & C. F. Manski, "undated". "Perceptions of Economic Insecurity: Evidence from the Survey of Economic Expectations," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1105-96, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
    2. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    4. Bill Provencher & Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Richard C. Bishop, 2002. "A Finite Mixture Logit Model of Recreational Angling with Serially Correlated Random Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1066-1075.
    5. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    6. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    7. Manski, Charles F. & Molinari, Francesca, 2010. "Rounding Probabilistic Expectations in Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 28(2), pages 219-231.
    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. Hocheol Jeon & Joseph A. Herriges, 2017. "Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1053-1086, December.
    2. Ian B. Page & Erik Lichtenberg & Monica Saavoss, 2020. "Estimating Willingness to Pay from Count Data When Survey Responses are Rounded," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(3), pages 657-675, March.

    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. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.
    2. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    3. William Breffle & Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher, 2011. "A Joint Latent-Class Model: Combining Likert-Scale Preference Statements With Choice Data to Harvest Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, September.
    4. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2004. "Comparing Individual-Specific Benefit Estimates for Public Goods: Finite Versus Continuous Mixing in Logit Models," Working Papers 2004.132, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa & Jordan Louviere, 2015. "Addressing Preference Heterogeneity, Multiple Scales and Attribute Attendance with a Correlated Finite Mixing Model of Tap Water Choice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 637-656, November.
    6. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    7. Brown, Zachary S. & Dickinson, Katherine L. & Paskewitz, Susan, 2015. "A generalized latent class logit model of discontinuous preferences in repeated discrete choice data: an application to mosquito control in Madison, Wisconsin," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205613, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Beville, Stephen T. & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2012. "Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-10.
    9. Kloos, Julia & Tsegai, Daniel W., 2009. "Preferences for domestic water services in the Middle Olifants sub-basin of South Africa," Discussion Papers 49970, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    10. Balogh, Péter & Török, Áron & Czine, Péter & Horváth, Péter, 2020. "A fogyasztói magatartás elemzése feltételes választási modellekkel - a mangalicakolbász példáján [Analysing consumer behaviour with conditional choice models, with Mangalica sausage as an example]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 474-494.
    11. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    12. Hilger, James & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "The Impact of Water Quality on Southern California Beach Recreation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9v17r715, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    13. Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, William George, 2018. "Types of front of pack food labels: Do obese consumers care? Evidence from Northern Ireland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 84-102.
    14. Hilger, James & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "The Impact of Water Quality on Southern California Beach Recreation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9v17r715, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    15. Hilger, James & Hanemann, Michael, 2006. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Water Quality: A Finite Mixture Model of Beach Recreation in Southern California," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0565c0b2, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    16. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    17. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Robinson, Jackie & Kaneko, Shinji & Komatsu, Satoru, 2013. "Estimating the value of economic benefits associated with adaptation to climate change in a developing country: A case study of improvements in tropical cyclone warning services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 117-128.
    18. Landauer, Mia & Pröbstl, Ulrike & Haider, Wolfgang, 2012. "Managing cross-country skiing destinations under the conditions of climate change – Scenarios for destinations in Austria and Finland," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 741-751.
    19. Eric Ruto & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate Preferences for Cattle Traits in Kenya," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Jinsoo Hwang & Seong Ok Lyu & Sun-Bai Cho, 2019. "In-Flight Casinos, Is It Really a Nonsensical Idea? An Exploratory Approach Using Different Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:isu:genstf:201006020700001116. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.