Accounting for choice set endogeneity in random utility models of recreation demand

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 127-147

  Haab, Timothy C ^a   Hicks, Robert L ^b  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHOICE SET ENDOGENEITY; RANDOM UTILITY MODEL; RECREATION DEMAND;

EID: 0031463830     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1997.1009     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bockstael N., Strand I., McConnell K. Benefits from Improvements in Chesapeake Bay Water Quality. 1988;U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
2. W. M. Hanemann, 1982, Applied Welfare Analysis with Qualitative Response Models, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley.
3. Hicks R., Strand I. The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for RUM Models. 1997;University of Maryland.
4. Horowitz I. Market definition in anti-trust analysis: a regression-based approach. Southern Econom. J. 48:1981;1-16.
5. Horowitz J. Statistical comparison of non-nested probabilistic discrete choice models. Transportation Sci. 17:1983;319-350.
6. Horowitz J., Louviere J. What is the role of consideration sets in choice modeling? Internat. J. Res. Marketing. 12:1995;39-54.
7. Krinsky I., Robb A. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econom. Statist. 68:1986;715-719.
8. Manski C. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision. 8:1977;229-254.
9. McConnell K. The Damages to Recreation Activities from PCB's in New Bedford Harbor. 1986;National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
10. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics. 1974;Academic Press, New York.
11. McFadden D. Modeling the choice of residential location. Karlqvist A. Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models. 1978;North-Holland, Amsterdam.
12. E. Morey, 1994, Two RUM's Uncloaked: Nested-Logit Models of Site Choice and Nested-Logit Models of Participation and Site Choice, Department of Economics, University of Colorado, Boulder.
13. Parsons G., Hauber A. Choice set boundaries in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Economics. 1997.
14. Parsons G., Kealy M. Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Economics. 68:1992;93-106.
15. Peters T., Adamowicz W., Boxall P. The influence of choice set consideration in modeling the benefits of improved water quality. Water Resour. Res. 613:1995;1781-1787.
16. Spiller P., Huang C. On the extent of the market: Wholesale gasoline in the northeastern United States. J. Industrial Econom. 35:1986;131-145.
17. Swait J., Ben-Akiva M. Incorporating random constraints in discrete choice models of choice set generation. Transportation Res. B. 21B:1987;91-102.
18. Swait J., Ben-Akiva M. Empirical test of a constrained choice discrete choice model: Mode choice in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Transportation Res. B. 21B:1987;91-102.
19. Thill J. Choice set formation for destination choice modeling. Prog. Human Geography. 16:1992;361-382.