Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Valuing Environmental Goods and Services: An Economic Perspective Read chapter Read first chapter

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

6. Travel Cost Models

Author : George R. Parsons

Published in: A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation

Publisher: Springer Netherlands

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter provides an introduction to Travel Cost Models used to estimate recreation demand and value recreational uses of the environment such as fishing, rock climbing, hunting, boating, etc. It includes a brief history, covers single-site and random-utility-based models, and discusses current issues and topics. The chapter is laid out in a step-by-step primer fashion. It is suitable for first-timers learning about travel cost modeling as well as seasoned analysts looking for a refresher on current approaches. The chapter includes an application of the random-utility-based model to beach use on the east coast of the USA along with measures of welfare loss for beach closures and changes in beach width.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Choice Experiments
next chapter Hedonics
Footnotes
1
A third group is the Kuhn-Tucker model, which combines features from the single-site and RUM models. It is not covered in this chapter. It is used less frequently and is more advanced than needed in this textbook. Phaneuf and Siderelis (2003) provide an excellent primer-like introduction to the Kuhn-Tucker model.
 
2
For an interesting discussion of using zero inflated Poisson models see Paul Allison’s commentary at www.​statisticalhoriz​ons.​com/​zero-inflated-models.
 
3
The single-site model can also be used to value quality change without stated-preference data by “pooling” or “stacking” many separate single-site models (Smith and Desvousges 1985). However, this approach does not account for substitution among sites and has largely fallen out of favor.
 
4
The coefficient \(\alpha\) in Eqs. (6.8) and (6.9) is a measure of the marginal utility of income because it describes how site utility changes with a decrease in income (less money to spend on other things) if a trip is taken. Because trip cost “takes away from income,” \(\alpha\) is the marginal effect of taking away income (\(\alpha \; < \;0\)), and \(- \alpha\) is a measure of adding to income or the marginal utility of income (\(- \alpha > 0\)).
 
5
In some cases, researchers will consider site utilities that are nonlinear in trip cost, allowing for nonconstant marginal utility of income and empirical forms of Eq. (6.15) that are not closed-form. See Herriges and Kling (1999) for a discussion and example.
 
6
Following convention, I have specified \(\alpha\), the coefficient on trip cost, as fixed. Because \(\alpha\) is used in the denominator of Eq. (6.13) for valuation, values tend to be extremely sensitive to variation created by mixing. This is a practical fix and an area where more research is needed.
 
7
The steps in estimating the single-site model are essentially the same. Site definition (Step 3) is obviously only for one site, and site characteristic data (Step 6) are typically not gathered. In instances where several single-site models are being “stacked” in estimation, analysts will often gather site characteristic data to allow for shifts in demand across sites.
 
8
Phaneuf (2002), for example, considers a variety of water quality measures, including pH, dissolved oxygen, phosphorous, ammonia, and an index defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lupi et al. (2003) use a catch rate of fish as a measure of quality.
 
9
Another way of accounting for preference heterogeneity is to estimate a Latent Class model, wherein people are sorted into a finite set of TCMs, each with its own set of parameters usually sorted by individual characteristics (Boxall and Adamowicz 2002).
 
10
For an example applied to fish catch, see McConnell et al. (1995). For a debate on the validity of this strategy, see Morey and Waldman (1998, 2000), and Train et al. (2000).
 
11
Expenses like food and souvenirs are typically excluded because they are not necessary to make the recreation trip possible.
 
12
Several studies have considered endogenous trip costs. Parsons (1991) analyzes endogenous residence choice and Baerenklau (2010) has a nice follow-up with some contrasting results. Bell and Strand (2003) let choice of route be endogenous. McConnell (1992), Berman and Kim (1999), Offenback and Goodwin (1994) analyze endogenous on-site time.
 
13
Even if some trips are multiple-purpose, Parsons and Wilson (1997) show that multiple-purpose trips where all other purposes are incidental, can be treated as single-purpose trips. If people say trips are primarily for the purpose of recreation, one may be able to safely assume all other purposes are incidental.
 
Literature
Adamowicz, W. L. (1994). Habit formation and variety seeking in a discrete choice model of recreation demand. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 19, 19-31.
Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Boxall, P., Louviere, J. & Williams, M. (1997). Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 65-84.
Andrews, T. (1996). A discrete choice model of recreational trout angler benefits in Pennsylvania. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, West Chester University, West Chester, PA.
Awondo, S. N., Egan, K. J. & Dwyer, D. F. (2011). Increasing beach recreation benefits by using wetlands to reduce contamination. Marine Resource Economics, 26, 1-15.
Baerenklau, K. A. (2010). A latent class approach to modeling endogenous spatial sorting in zonal recreation demand models. Land Economics, 86, 800-816.
Bell, K. P. & Strand, I. E. (2003). Reconciling models of recreational route and site choices. Land Economics, 79, 440-454.
Ben-Akiva, M. & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. In Marvin Manheim (Series Ed.), MIT Press Series: Vol. 9. Transportation studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Berman, M. D. & Kim, H. J. (1999). Endogenous on-site time in the recreation demand model. Land Economics, 75, 603-619.
Bin, O., Landry, C. E., Ellis, C. L. & Vogelsong, H. (2005). Some consumer surplus estimates for North Carolina beaches. Marine Resource Economics, 20 (2), 145-161.
Bockstael, N. E., Hanemann, W. M. & Kling, C. L. (1987). Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework. Water Resources Research, 23, 951-960.
Bockstael, N. E., Hanemann, W. M. & Strand, I. E. (1984). Measuring the benefits of water quality improvements using recreation demand models. Report presented to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. College Park: University of Maryland.
Bockstael, N. E., McConnell, K. E. & Strand, I. E. (1988). Benefits from improvements in Chesapeake Bay water quality. Report presented to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. College Park: University of Maryland.
Boxall, P. C. & Adamowicz, W. L. (2002). Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 421-446.
Boxall, P., Hauer, G. & Adamowicz, W. (2001). Modeling congestion as a form of interdependence in random utility models (Staff paper 05-01). Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Boxall, P., Rollins, K. & Englin, J. (2003). Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during a wilderness experience. Resource and Energy Economics, 25, 177-195.
Breffle, W. S. & Morey, E. R. (2000). Investigating preference heterogeneity in a repeated discrete-choice recreation demand model of Atlantic salmon fishing. Marine Resource Economics, 15, 1-20.
Brown, G. Jr. & Mendelsohn, R. (1984). The hedonic travel cost method. Review of Economics and Statistics, 66, 427-433.
Brown, W. G. & Nawas, F. (1973). Impact of aggregation on the estimation of outdoor recreation demand functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55, 246-249.
Burt, O. R. & Brewer, D. (1971). Estimation of net social benefits from outdoor recreation. Econometrica, 39, 813-827.
Cameron, A. C. & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M. & Wegge, T. C. (1987). Southcentral Alaska Sport Fishing Study. Report prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, AK.
Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M. & Wegge, T. C. (2009). A nested logit model of recreational fishing demand in Alaska. Marine Resource Economics, 24, 101-129.
Cicchetti, C. J., Fisher, A. C. & Smith, V. K. (1976). An econometric evaluation of a generalized consumer surplus measure: The Mineral King controversy. Econometrica, 44, 1259-1276.
Clawson, M. & Knetsch, J. L. (1969). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Creel, M. D. & Loomis, J. B. (1990). Theoretical and empirical advantages of truncated count data estimators for analysis of deer hunting in California. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, 434-441.
Cutter, W. B., Pendleton, L. & DeShazo, J. R. (2007). Activities in models of recreational demand. Land Economics, 83, 370-381.
Day, B. (2000). A recreational demand model of wildlife-viewing visits to the game reserves of the Kwazulu-Natal Province of South Africa (GEC-2000-08). Working paper, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.
Deaton, A. (1997). The analysis of household surveys: a microeconomic approach to development policy. Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Edwards, P. E. T., Parsons, G. R. & Myers, K. H. (2011). The economic value of viewing migratory shorebirds on the Delaware Bay: An application of the single site travel cost model using on-site data. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16, 435-444.
Egan, K. & Herriges, J. (2006). Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52, 567-581.
Egan, K. J., Herriges, J. A., Kling, C. L. & Downing, J. A. (2009). Valuing water quality as a function of water quality measures. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91, 70-86.
Englin, J., Boxall, P. & Watson, D. (1998). Modeling recreation demand in a Poisson system of equations: An analysis of the impact of international exchange rates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 255-263.
Englin, J. & Cameron, T. A. (1996). Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data. Environmental and Resource Economics, 7, 133-147.
Englin, J. & Shonkwiler, J. S. (1995). Modeling recreation demand in the presence of unobservable travel costs: Toward a travel price model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 368-377.
Feather, P. M. (1994). Sampling and aggregation issues in random utility model estimation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76, 772-780.
Feather, P. & Hellerstein, D. (1997). Calibrating benefit function transfer to assess the conservation reserve program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 151-162.
Feather, P. & Shaw, W. D. (1999). Estimating the cost of leisure time for recreation demand models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38, 49-65.
Fisher, A. & Krutilla, J. V. (1972). Determination of optimal capacity of resource-based recreation facilities. Natural Resources Journal, 12, 417-444.
Fisher, W. L., Grambsch, A. E., Eisenhower, D. L., & Morganstein, D. R. (1991). Length of recall period and accuracy of estimates from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 12, 367-374.
Freeman III, A. M. (2003). The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: RFF Press.
Greene, W. H. (2007). Econometric analysis (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Grijalva, T. C., Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Jakus, P. M. & Shaw, W. D. (2002). Valuing the loss of rock climbing access in wilderness areas: A national-level, random-utility model. Land Economics, 78, 103-120.
Gurmu, S. & Trivedi, P. K. (1996). Excess zeros in count models for recreational trips. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 14, 469-477.
Haab, T. C. & McConnell, K. E. (1996). Count data models and the problem of zeros in recreation demand analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78, 89-102.
Haab, T. C. & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources: The econometrics of non-market valuation. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Haener, M. K., Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L. & Kuhnke, D. H. (2004). Aggregation bias in recreation site choice models: Resolving the resolution problem. Land Economics, 80, 561-574.
Hang, D., McFadden, D., Train, K. & Wise, K. (2016). Is vehicle depreciation a component of marginal travel cost?: A literature review and empirical analysis. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 50(2):1-19.
Hanley, N., Bell, D. & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2003a). Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behaviour. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 273-285.
Hanley, N., Shaw, W. D. & Wright, R. E. (2003b). The new economics of outdoor recreation. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Hauber, A. B. & Parsons, G. R. (2000). The effect of nesting structure specification on welfare estimation in a random utility model of recreation demand: An application to the demand for recreational fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82, 501-514.
Hausman, J. A., Leonard, G. K. & McFadden, D. (1995). A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage. Journal of Public Economics, 56, 1-30.
Hellerstein, D. M. (1991). Using count data models in travel cost analysis with aggregate data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 860-866.
Hellerstein, D. M. (1992). The treatment of nonparticipants in travel cost analysis and other demand models. Water Resources Research 28, 1999-2004.
Hellerstein, D. M. & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). A theoretical foundation for count data models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 604-611.
Herriges, J. A. & Kling, C. L. (Eds.). (1999). Valuing recreation and the environment: Revealed preference methods in theory and practice. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Herriges, J. A. & Kling, C. L. (Eds.). (2008). Revealed preference approaches to environmental valuation (Vol. 1). Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate.
Herriges, J. A., Kling, C. L. & Phaneuf, D. J. (1999). Corner solution models of recreation demand: A comparison of competing frameworks. In J. A. Herriges & C. L. Kling (Eds.), Valuing recreation and the environment: Revealed preference methods in theory and practice. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Herriges, J. A. & Phaneuf, D. J. (2002). Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84, 1076-1090.
Hicks, R. L. & Strand, I. E. (2000). The extent of information: Its relevance for random utility models. Land Economics, 76, 374-385.
Hindsley, P., Landry, C. E. & Gentner, B. (2011). Addressing onsite sampling in recreation site choice models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62, 95-110.
Hoehn, J. P., Tomasi, T., Lupi, F. & Chen, H. Z. (1996). An economic model for valuing recreational angling resources in Michigan. Report presented to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Hof, J. G. & King, D. A. (1982). On the necessity of simultaneous recreation demand equation estimation. Land Economics, 58, 547-552.
Hotelling, H. (1949). An economic study of the monetary valuation of recreation in the National Parks. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService and Recreation Planning Division.
Hunt, L. M., Boxall, P. C. & Boots, B. N. (2007). Accommodating complex substitution patterns in a random utility model of recreational fishing. Marine Resource Economics, 22, 155-172.
Hynes, S., Hanley, N. & Garvey, E. (2007). Up the proverbial creek without a paddle: Accounting for variable participant skill levels in recreational demand modelling. Environmental and Resource Economics, 36, 413-426.
Jakus, P. M., Bergstrom, J. C., Phillips, M. & Maloney, K. (2011). Modeling behavioral response to changes in reservoir operations in the Tennessee Valley region. In J. Whitehead, T. Haab & J.-C. Huang (Eds.), Preference data for environmental valuation: Combining revealed and stated approaches (pp. 253-272). New York: Routledge.
Joen, Y., Herriges, J. A., Kling, C. L. & Downing, J. (2011). The role of water quality perceptions in modelling lake recreation demand. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation (pp. 74-101). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Kaoru, Y. (1995). Measuring marine recreation benefits of water quality improvements by the nested random utility model. Resource and Energy Economics, 17, 119-136.
Kinnell, J. C., Bingham, M. F., Mohamed, A. F., Desvousges, W. H., Kiler, T. B., Hastings, E. K. & Kuhns, K. T. (2006). Estimating site choice decisions for urban recreators. Land Economics, 82, 257-272.
Laitila, T. (1999). Estimation of combined site-choice and trip-frequency models of recreational demand using choice-based and on-site samples. Economic Letters, 64, 17-23.
Landry, C. E. & Liu, H. (2009). A semi-parametric estimator for revealed and stated preference data—An application to recreational beach visitation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 57, 205-218.
Landry, C. E. & Liu, H. (2011). Econometric models for joint estimation of revealed and stated preference site-frequency recreation demand models. In J. Whitehead, T. Haab & J.-C. Huang (Eds.), Preference data for environmental valuation: Combining revealed and stated approaches (pp. 87-100). New York: Routledge.
Leggett, C. G., Scherer, N., Haab, T. C., Bailey, R., Landrum, J. P. & Domanski, A. (2015). Assessing the economic benefits of reductions in marine debris at Southern California beaches: a random utility travel cost model. Industrial Economics Inc. Manuscript.
Lew, D. K., NOAA Fisheries & Larson, D. M. (2008). Valuing a beach day with a repeated nested logit model of participation, site choice, and stochastic time value. Marine Resource Economics, 23 (3), 233-252.
Lupi, F. & Feather, P. M. (1998). Using partial site aggregation to reduce bias in random utility travel cost models. Water Resources Research, 34, 3595-3603.
Lupi, F., Hoehn, J. P., and Christie, G. C. (2003). Using an economic model of recreational fishing to evaluate the benefits of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) control on the St. Marys River. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29 (Supplement 1), 742-754.
Martinez-Espiñeira, R. & Amoako-Tuffour, J. (2008). Recreation demand analysis under truncation, overdispersion, and endogenous stratification: An application to Gros Morne National Park. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 1320-1332.
Massey, D. M., Newbold, S. C. & Gentner, B. (2006). Valuing water quality changes using a bioeconomic model of a coastal recreational fishery. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52 (1), 482-500.
McConnell, K. E. (1977). Congestion and willingness to pay: A study of beach use. Land Economics, 53, 185-195.
McConnell, K. E. (1992). On-site time in the demand for recreation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 918-925.
McConnell, K. E. & Strand, I. (1981). Measuring the cost of time in recreation demand analysis: An application to sportfishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63, 153-156.
McConnell, K. E. & Strand, I. E. (1994). The economic value of mid and south Atlantic sportfishing. Report presented to the University of Maryland, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. College Park: University of Maryland.
McConnell, K. E., Strand Jr., I. E. & Blake-Hedges, L. (1995). Random utility models of recreational fishing: Catching fish using a Poisson process. Marine Resource Economics, 10, 247-261.
McConnell, K. E., Strand, I. E. & Bockstael, N. E. (1990). Habit formation and the demand for recreation: Issues and a case study. In V. K. Smith, A. D. Witte & A. N. Link (Eds.), Advances in applied microeconomics 5 (pp. 217-235). New York: Jai Press.
McFadden, D. (2001). Economic choices. American Economic Review, 91, 351-378.
Mendelsohn, R., Hof, J., Peterson, G. & Johnson, R. (1992). Measuring recreation values with multiple destination trips. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 926-933.
Moeltner, K. (2003). Addressing aggregation bias in zonal recreation models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 128-144.
Moeltner, K. & Englin, J. (2004). Choice behavior under time-variant quality: State dependence versus ‘play-it-by-ear’ in selecting ski resorts. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 22, 214-224.
Moeltner, K. & Shonkwiler, J. S. (2005). Correcting for on-site sampling in random utility models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87, 327-339.
Morey, E. R. (1981). The demand for site-specific recreational activities: A characteristics approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 8, 345-371.
Morey, E. R. (1999). Two RUMS uncloaked: Nested-logit models of site choice and nested-logit models of participation and site choice. In J. A. Herriges & C. L. Kling (Eds.), Valuing recreation and the environment: Revealed preference methods in theory and practice (pp. 65-120). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Morey, E. R., Shaw, W. D. & Rowe, R. D. (1991). A discrete-choice model of recreational participation, site choice, and activity valuation when complete trip data are not available. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 20, 181-201.
Morey, E. R. & Waldman, D. M. (1998). Measurement error in recreation demand models: The joint estimation of participation, site choice, and site characteristics. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 35, 262-276.
Morey, E. R. & Waldman, D. M. (2000). Joint estimation of catch and other travel-cost parameters—Some further thoughts. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40, 82-85.
Morgan, O. A. & Huth, W. L. (2011). Using revealed and stated preference data to estimate the scope and access benefits associated with cave diving. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 107-118.
Murdock, J. (2006). Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51, 1-25.
Murray, C., Sohngen, B. & Pendelton, L. (2001). Valuing water quality advisories and beach amenities in the Great Lakes. Water Resources Research, 37, 2583-2590.
Offenbach, L. A. & Goodwin, B. K. (1994). A travel-cost analysis of the demand for hunting trips in Kansas. Review of Agricultural Economics, 16, 55-61.
Parsons, G. R. (1991). A note on choice of residential location in travel cost demand models. Land Economics, 67, 360-364.
Parsons, G. R. (2013). The travel cost model. In J. Shogren (Ed.), Encyclopedia of energy, natural resource, and environmental economics (Vol. 3: Environment, pp. 349-358). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Parsons, G. R., Chen, Z., Hidrue, M., Lilley, J., Standing, N. & Lilley, J. (2013). Valuing beach width for recreational use: Combining revealed and stated preference data. Marine Resource Economics, 28, 221-241.
Parsons, G. R., Jakus, P. M. & Tomasi, T. (1999a). 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, 38, 143-157.
Parsons, G. R., Kang, A. K., Leggett, C. G. & Boyle, K. J. (2009). Valuing beach closures on the Padre Island National Seashore. Marine Resource Economics, 24, 213-235.
Parsons, G. R. & Kealy, M. J. (1992). Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Economics, 68, 93-106.
Parsons, G. R. & Massey, D. M. (2003). A random utility model of beach recreation. In N. Hanley, W. D. Shaw & R. E. Wright (Eds.), The new economics of outdoor recreation (pp. 241-267). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Parsons, G. R., Massey, D. M. & Tomasi, T. (1999b). Familiar and favorite sites in a random utility model of beach recreation. Marine Resource Economics, 14, 299-315.
Parsons, G. R. & Needelman, M. S. (1992). Site aggregation in a random utility model of recreation. Land Economics, 68, 418-433.
Parsons, G. R., Plantinga, A. J. & Boyle, K. J. (2000). Narrow choice sets in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Economics, 76, 86-99.
Parsons, G. R. & Stefanova, S. (2011). Gauging the value of short-time site closures in a travel-cost random utility model of recreation demand with a little help from stated preference data. In J. Whitehead, T. Haab & J.-C. Huang (Eds.), Preference data for environmental valuation: Combining revealed and stated approaches (pp. 239-252). New York: Routledge.
Parsons, G. R. & Wilson, A. J. (1997). Incidental and joint consumption in recreation demand. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 26, 1-6.
Peters, T., Adamowicz, W. L. & Boxall, P. C. (1995). Influence of choice set considerations in modeling the benefits from improved water quality. Water Resources Research, 31, 1781-1787.
Phaneuf, D. J. (2002). A random utility model for total maximum daily loads: Estimating the benefits of watershed-based ambient water quality improvements. Water Resources Research, 38, 1254-1264.
Phaneuf, D. J., Kling, C. L. & Herriges, J. A. (2000). Estimation and welfare calculations in a generalized corner solution model with an application to recreation demand. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82, 83-92.
Phaneuf, D. J. & Siderelis, C. (2003). An application of the Kuhn-Tucker model to the demand for water trail trips in North Carolina. Marine Resource Economics, 18 (1), 1-14.
Phaneuf, D. J. & Smith, V. K. (2005). Recreation demand models. In K.-G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics (pp. 671-761). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Provencher, B. & Bishop, R. C. (1997). An estimable dynamic model of recreation behavior with an application to Great Lakes angling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 107-127.
Provencher, B. & Moore, R. (2006). A discussion of “using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: A latent-class model.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 117-124.
Riera, P., McConnell, K. E., Giergiczny, M. & Mahieu, P. (2011). Applying the travel cost method to Minorca beaches: Some policy results. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation (pp. 60-73). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Scarpa, R., Thiene, M. & Train, K. (2008). Utility in willingness to pay space: A tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90, 994-1010.
Shaw, D. (1988). On-site samples’ regression: Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification. Journal of Econometrics, 37, 211-223.
Shaw, W. D. & Jakus, P. M. (1996). Travel cost models of the demand for rock climbing. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 25, 133-142.
Shaw, W. D. & Ozog, M. T. (1999). Modeling overnight recreation trip choice: Application of a repeated nested multinomial logit model. Environmental and Resource Economics, 13, 397-414.
Shonkwiler, J. S. & Shaw, W. D. (1996). Hurdle count-data models in recreation demand analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21(2), 210-219.
Siderelis, C., Brothers, G. & Rea, P. (1995). A boating choice model for the valuation of lake access. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 264-282.
Small, K. A. & Rosen, H. S. (1981). Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica, 49, 105-130.
Smith, V. K. & Desvousges, W. H. (1985). The generalized travel cost model and water quality benefits: A reconsideration. Southern Economics Journal, 52, 371-381.
Smith, V. K., Desvousges, W. H. & McGivney, M. P. (1983). The opportunity cost of travel time in recreation demand models. Land Economics, 59, 259-278.
Sohngen, B. (2000). The value of day trips to Lake Erie beaches. Unpublished report, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Stefanova, S. (2009). Measuring the recreational value of changes in beach access, beach width, and vehicle access in the Mid-Atlantic region: Application of random utility models. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark.
Swait, J., Adamowicz, W. & van Bueren, M. (2004). Choice and temporal welfare impacts: Incorporating history into discrete choice models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47, 94-116.
Tay, R., McCarthy, P. S. & Fletcher, J. J. (1996). A portfolio choice model of the demand for recreational trips. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 30, 325-337.
Thiene, M. & Scarpa, R. (2009). Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44, 379-395.
Timmins, C. & Murdock, J. (2007). A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53, 230-249.
Train, K. (1986). Qualitative choice analysis: Theory, econometrics, and an application to automobile demand. London: MIT Press.
Train, K. E. (1998). Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics, 74, 230-239.
Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Train, K., McFadden, D. & Johnson, R. (2000). Discussion of Morey and Waldman’s “Measurement error in recreation demand models.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40, 76-81.
Trice, A. H. & Wood, S. E. (1958). Measurement of recreation benefits. Land Economics, 34, 195-207.
Von Haefen, R. H. (2008). Latent consideration sets and continuous demand systems. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41, 363-379.
Whitehead, J. C., Dumas, C. F., Herstine, J., Hill, J. & Buerger, R. (2008). Valuing beach access and width with revealed and stated preference data. Marine Resource Economics, 23, 119-135.
Whitehead, J. C., Haab, T. C. & Huang, J.-C. (2000). Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resource and Energy Economics, 22, 339-354.
Whitehead, J., Haab, T. & Huang, J.-C. (Eds.). (2011). Preference data for environmental valuation: Combining revealed and stated approaches. New York: Routledge.
Yeh, C.-Y., Haab, T. C. & Sohngen, B. L. (2006). Modeling multiple-objective recreation trips with choices over trip duration and alternative sites. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 189-209.
Whitehead, J. C,, Phaneuf, D. J., Dumas, C. F., Herstine, J., Hill, J. & Buerger, B. (2010). Convergent validity of revealed and stated recreation behavior with quality change: a comparison of muliple and single site demands. Environmental and Resource Economics, 45, 91-112.
Metadata
Title
Travel Cost Models
Author
George R. Parsons
Copyright Year
2017
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Book
A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation

Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7103-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-007-7104-8

Copyright Year: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_6