IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa15p344.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring lost recreational benefits in Fukushima due to harmful rumors using a Poisson-inverse Gaussian regression?

Author

Listed:
  • Katsuhito Nohara
  • Masaki Narukawa

Abstract

The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake hereafter, 'the Earthquake' and the accident involving radiation leakage at Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant No. 1 hereafter, 'NPP No. 1' brought fame to Fukushima Prefecture but not in a positive way. In general, economic damage caused by misinformation is defined as 'damage caused by groundless rumors, in particular, economic damage suffered by people or groups caused by improper news coverage, even though they have essentially nothing to do with an event or accident.' (Kojien sixth edition, 2008) This means that tourism in a given area will be affected by news coverage and misinformation that differ from the facts (for example, degradation in environmental quality at a recreation site), tourists will be deterred, and the economy at the site will be negatively affected. However, the degree to which such news coverage and misinformation affect people's activities is largely dependent on those people's state of mind. It is impossible to determine the exact number of visits that would have been made to the region in question had there been no such news coverage, no harmful rumors, and no environmental degradation. Thus, after the sensational news coverage about radiation at NPP No. 1, the inclusion of people in the survey sample who had never visited Fukushima Prefecture would have skewed the expected trip numbers and overestimated the monetary loss of tourism. This paper estimated the recreational benefits lost in Fukushima Prefecture due to rumor-driven economic damage from the NPP No. 1 radiation leakage accident in March 2011 to March 2014. Considering the hypothetical scenario in which a radiation leakage accident did not occur in Fukushima, we asked survey respondents how many times they would have visited the prefecture in this scenario and analyzed the responses using the Hypothetical Travel Cost Model. Since the survey participants were people who had actually visited the prefecture, we considered our data as pseudo on-site sampling. We thus expanded the Poisson-Invese Gaussian hereafter, 'PIG' regression model, which will improve the standard Poisson regression model in the analysis of count data with strong overdispersion, into a random effect model. In addition, to deal with the data collected through on-site sampling, we applied Shaw's correction to the PIG random effect model and used it to estimate the demand function for the recreational trip. The estimation results showed that Fukushima Prefecture's lost recreational benefits due to rumor-driven economic damage totaled approximately 2.85 trillion yen over the three years from the radiation leakage accident to March 2014.

Suggested Citation

  • Katsuhito Nohara & Masaki Narukawa, 2015. "Measuring lost recreational benefits in Fukushima due to harmful rumors using a Poisson-inverse Gaussian regression?," ERSA conference papers ersa15p344, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa15p344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa15/e150825aFinal00344.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2013. "Regression Analysis of Count Data," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107667273, January.
    2. Masaki Narukawa & Katsuhito Nohara, 2011. "Semiparametric estimation of on-stie count data models," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 584-590.
    3. Hubbell, Bryan J. & Marra, Michele C. & Carlson, Gerald A., 2000. "Estimating The Demand For A New Technology: Bt Cotton And Insecticide Policies In The Southeast," Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 26016, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    4. 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.
    5. Shaw, Daigee, 1988. "On-site samples' regression : Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 211-223, February.
    6. Jie Q. Guo & Pravin K. Trivedi, 2002. "Flexible Parametric Models for Long‐tailed Patent Count Distributions," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 64(1), pages 63-82, February.
    7. Rakhal Sarker & Yves Surry, 2004. "The Fast Decay Process in Outdoor Recreational Activities and the Use of Alternative Count Data Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 701-715.
    8. O. Morgan & John Whitehead & William Huth & Greg Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 593-611, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 2004. "Risk Valuation in the Presence of Risky Substitutes: An Application to Demand for Seafood," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 213-228, April.
    11. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    12. Bryan J. Hubbell & Michele C. Marra & Gerald A. Carlson, 2000. "Estimating the Demand for a New Technology: Bt Cotton and Insecticide Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), pages 118-132.
    13. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    14. Rainer Winkelmann, 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Deborah Vaughn Nestor, 1998. "Policy Evaluation with Combined Actual and Contingent Response Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 264-276.
    17. Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2000. "Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 339-354, October.
    18. R. Craig Layman & John R. Boyce & Keith R. Criddle, 1996. "Economic Valuation of the Chinook Salmon Sport Fishery of the Gulkana River, Alaska, under Current and Alternate Management Plans," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 113-128.
    19. Marc O. Ribaudo & Donald J. Epp, 1984. "The Importance of Sample Discrimination in Using the Travel Cost Method to Estimate the Benefits of Improved Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 60(4), pages 397-403.
    20. Rakhal Sarker & Yves Surry, 2004. "The fast decay process in recreational demand activities and the use of alternative count data models," Post-Print hal-02682254, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Katsuhito Nohara, 2014. "Economic Valuation of the Damage to Tourism Benefits by Eastern Japan Great Earthquake Disaster," ERSA conference papers ersa14p1017, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Simões, Paula & Barata, Eduardo & Cruz, Luís, 2013. "Joint estimation using revealed and stated preference data: An application using a national forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 249-266.
    3. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    4. Stephen Hynes & William Greene, 2016. "Preference Heterogeneity in Contingent Behaviour Travel Cost Models with On-site Samples: A Random Parameter vs. a Latent Class Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 348-367, June.
    5. Luís Cruz & Paula Simões & Eduardo Barata, 2014. "Combining Observed and Contingent Travel Behaviour: The Best of Both Worlds?," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 7-25, December.
    6. Stephen Hynes & William Greene, 2013. "A Panel Travel Cost Model Accounting for Endogenous Stratification and Truncation: A Latent Class Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 177-192.
    7. 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.
    8. Hynes, Stephen & Greene, William, 2012. "Panel Travel Cost Count Data Models for On-Site Samples that Incorporate Unobserved Heterogeneity with Respect to the Impact of the Explanatory Variables," Working Papers 148834, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    9. O. Morgan & John Whitehead & William Huth & Greg Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 593-611, April.
    10. Voltaire, Louinord & Koutchade, Obafèmi Philippe, 2020. "Public acceptance of and heterogeneity in behavioral beach trip responses to offshore wind farm development in Catalonia (Spain)," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    11. Nobel, Anne & Lizin, Sebastien & Witters, Nele & Rineau, Francois & Malina, Robert, 2020. "The impact of wildfires on the recreational value of heathland: A discrete factor approach with adjustment for on-site sampling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Hoyos, David & Riera, Pere, 2013. "Convergent validity between revealed and stated recreation demand data: Some empirical evidence from the Basque Country, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 234-248.
    13. 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.
    14. Paula Simões & Luís Cruz & Eduardo Barata, 2012. "Non-market Recreational Value of a National Forest: Survey Design and Results," GEMF Working Papers 2012-09, GEMF, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra.
    15. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "Measuring the Impact of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Working Papers 13-11, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    16. Rainer Winkelmann, 2015. "Counting on count data models," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 148-148, May.
    17. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Tobias, Justin L., 2008. "Estimating demand systems when outcomes are correlated counts," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 282-298, December.
    18. 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 - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    19. Edwin Muchapondwa & Eyoual Demeke & Samson Mukanjari, 2018. "Recreation Demand and Optimal Pricing for International Visitors to Kruger National Park," Working Papers 743, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    20. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    harmful rumor; hypothetical travel cost; Poisson-inverse Gaussian regression;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa15p344. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.