Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating Recreation Preferences Using Hedonic Travel Cost and Random Utility Models

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last decade, several authors have questioned thevalidity of the hedonic travel cost model, arguing instead that the random utility model is a superior method forvaluing recreational site attributes. This paper demonstrates that the two methods emanate from a similar utilitytheoretic framework; yet in practice these methods differ in the assumptions made in their application.Constraining the underlying utility functions to be consistent, both models are applied to the valuation ofrecreational site attributes in the Southeastern United States. The way in which each method estimates preferencesfor site attributes is shown to depend critically on the method and the functional form of theunderlying utility function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAA (1992), ‘Your Driving Costs’, American Automobile Association Public Affairs Publications. Heathrow, FL.

  • Anderson, S., A. de Palma and J. Thisse (1992), Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arguea, N. M. and C. Hsiao (1993), ‘Econometric Issues of Estimating Hedonic Price Functions’, Journal of Econometrics 56, 243-267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bockstael, N. (1997), ‘Travel Cost Models’, in D. Bromley, ed., Handbook of Environmental Economics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Handbook in Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bockstael, N. and I. Strand (1987), ‘The Effect of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates’, Land Economics 63(1), 11-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bockstael, N., W. M. Hanemann and C. Kling (1987), ‘Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a Recreational Demand Framework’, Water Resources Research 23, 951-960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bockstael, N., K. McConnell and I. Strand (1991), ‘Recreation’, in J. Braden and C. Kolstad, eds., Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. North-Holland: Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. and R. Mendelsohn (1984), ‘The Hedonic Travel Cost Method’, Review of Economics and Statistics 66, 427-433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropper, M., L. Deck, N. Kishor and K. McConnell (1993), ‘Valuing Product Attributes Using Single Market Data: A Comparison of Hedonic and Discrete Choice Approaches’, Review of Economics and Statistics 75(2), 225-232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englin, J. and R. Mendelsohn (1991), ‘A Hedonic Travel Cost Analysis for Valuation of Multiple Components of Site Quality: The Recreation Value of Forest Management’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21, 275-290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. (1993), The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Resources for the Future.

  • Hanemann, M. (1984), ‘Discrete-continuous Models of Consumer Demand’, Econometrica 52, 541-561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. (1981), ‘Exact Consumer's Surplus and Deadweight Loss’, The American Economic Review 71(4), 662-676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J., G. Leonard and D. McFadden (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaoru, Y, V. Smith and J. Liu (1995), ‘Using Random utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77, 141-151.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFrance, J. T. (1985), ‘Linear Demand Functions in Theory and Practice’, Journal of Economic Theory 37, 137-166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. (1966), ‘A New Approach to Consumer Theory’, Journal of Political Economy 74(2), 132-157.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1978), ‘Modeling the Choice of Residential Location’, in A. Karlquist, L. Lundquist, F. Snickers and J. Weibull, eds., Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models, pp. 75-96. North-Holland: Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelsohn, R. (1984), ‘An Application of the Hedonic Travel Cost Framework for Recreation Modeling to the Value of Deer’, Advances in Applied Microeconomics 3, 89-101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelsohn, R. (1985), ‘Identifying Structural Equations With Single Market Data’, Review of Economics and Statistics 67, 525-529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelsohn, R. (1987), ‘A Review of Identification of Hedonic Supply and Demand Functions’, Growth and Change 18(1), 82-92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, E., R. Rowe and M. Watson (1993), ‘A Repeated Nested Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 578-592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, G. and M. Kealy (1992), ‘Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation’, Land Economics 68(1), 93-106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, G. and M. Needleman (1992), ‘Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation’, Land Economics 68(4), 418-433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendleton, L. and R. Mendelsohn (1998a), ‘Estimating the Economic Impact of Climate Change on The Freshwater Sportsfisheries of the Northeastern United States’, Land Economics 1998 74(4), 483-497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendleton, L., B. Sohngen, R. Mendelsohn and T. Holmes (1998b), ‘Measuring Environmental Quality in the Southern Appalachian Mountains’, Forest Science 1998 44(4), 603-609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pudney, S. (1989), Modelling Individual Choice. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A. and J. Stoll (1980). ‘Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space’, American Economic Review 70(3), 449-455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, S. (1994), ‘Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition’, Journal of Political Economy 82, 34-55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K. and Y. Kaoru (1987), ‘The Hedonic Travel Cost Method: A View From the Trenches’, Land Economics 63, 779-792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V., R. Palmquist and P. Jakus (1991), ‘Combining Farrell Frontier and Hedonic Travel Cost Models for Valuing Estuarine Quality’, Review of Economics and Statistics 73(4), 694-699.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA (1993). ZIPFIP: A ZIP and FIPS Database. Created by D. Hellerstein, D. Woo, D. McCollum, and D. Donnelly.

  • Willig, R. (1976), ‘Consumer's Surplus Without Apology’, The American Economic Review 66(4), 589-597.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, C 90089-0253, USA

    Linwood Pendleton

  2. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 360 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Robert Mendelsohn

Authors
  1. Linwood Pendleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Mendelsohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pendleton, L., Mendelsohn, R. Estimating Recreation Preferences Using Hedonic Travel Cost and Random Utility Models. Environmental and Resource Economics 17, 89–108 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008374423710

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008374423710

Search

Navigation