IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/umn/wpaper/0803.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Alternative Approaches to Incorporating the Opportunity Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Models

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Azevedo

    () (University of Central Missouri)

  • John R. Crooker

    () (University of Central Missouri)

Abstract

The importance of accounting for a respondent’s travel time in recreation demand models is well established. In practice, most analysts use a fixed fraction of the respondent’s wage rate to value travel time. However, other approaches have been suggested in the literature. In this paper revealed and stated preference data on Iowa wetland usage is used to explore various specifications of travel time. It is shown that the choice of a particular specification has a direct impact on welfare estimates as well as the consistency between revealed and stated preference data.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Azevedo & John R. Crooker, 2008. "Alternative Approaches to Incorporating the Opportunity Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Models," Working Papers 0803, University of Central Missouri, Department of Economics & Finance, revised May 2008.
  • Handle: RePEc:umn:wpaper:0803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://faculty.ucmo.edu/econfinpapers/wpaper/wp0803.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Loomis & Armando Gonzalez-Caban & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 499-506.
    2. Weninger, Quinn & Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L. & McConnell, Kenneth & Strand, Ivar, 1999. "Joint Estimation of Contingent Valuation and Truncated Recreational Demands," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5349, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Feather, Peter & Shaw, W. Douglass, 1999. "Estimating the Cost of Leisure Time for Recreation Demand Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 49-65, July.
    4. Peter Feather & Daniel Hellerstein, 1997. "Calibrating Benefit Function Transfer to Assess the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 151-162.
    5. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    6. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    7. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    8. Azevedo, Christopher Dean, 1999. "Linking revealed and stated preference data in recreation demand modeling," ISU General Staff Papers 1999010108000013438, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & Matthew P. McGivney, 1983. "The Opportunity Cost of Travel Time in Recreation Demand Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(3), pages 259-278.
    11. Frank J. Cesario, 1976. "Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(1), pages 32-41.
    12. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
    13. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:umn:wpaper:0803. 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: (Paul Chambers). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/decmsus.html .

    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 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.

    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.