A comparison of the effect of multiple destination trips on recreation benefits as estimated by travel cost and contingent valuation methods

Journal of Leisure Research

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 46-60

  Loomis, John ^a  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Multiple destination trip bias; Recreation demand; Travel cost method; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; OUTDOOR RECREATION; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; TRAVEL DEMAND; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 33646534874     PISSN: 00222216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00222216.2006.11950068     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bishop, R., & Heberlein, T. (1979). Measuring values of extra market goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 926-930.
2. Carson, R., Flores, N., Martin, K., & J. Wright. (1996). Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72, 151-163.
3. Creel, M., & Loomis, J. (1990). Theoretical and empirical advantages of truncated count data estimators for analysis of deer hunting in California. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 434-45.
4. Englin, J., & Shonkwiler, S. (1995a). Modeling recreation demand in the presence of unobservable travel costs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 368-377.
5. Englin, J., & Shonkwiler, S. (1995b). Estimating social welfare using count data models. Review of Economics and Statistics 77, 104-112.
6. Feather, P., & Shaw, D. (1999). Estimating the cost of leisure time for recreation demand models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38, 49-65.
7. Hanemann, M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 332-341.
8. Hanemann, M. (1989). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 1057-1061.
9. Haspel, A., & Johnson, R. (1982). Multiple destination trip bias in recreation benefit estimation. Land Economics 58, 364-372.
10. Knetsch, J., & Davis, R. (1966). Comparisons of methods for recreation evaluation. In A. Kneese and S. Smith (Eds). Water Research. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11. Larson, D. (1993a). Joint recreation choices and implied values of time. Land Economics 69, 270-286.
12. Larson, D. (1993b). Separability and the shadow value of leisure time. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 572-577.
13. Loomis, J., Shizuka Y., & Larson, D. (2002). Testing significance of multi-destination and multi-purpose trip effects in a travel cost method demand model for whale watching trips. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 29, 183-191.
14. Mendelsohn, R., Hof, J., Peterson, G. & Johnson, R. (1992). Measuring recreation values with multiple destination trips. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74, 926-933.
15. Mitchell, R., & Carson, R. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
16. Park, T., Loomis, J., & Creel, M. (1991). Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Economics 67, 64-73.
17. Parsons, G., & Wilson, A. (1997). Incidental and joint consumption in recreation demand. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24, 1-6.
18. Poe, G., Severance-Lossin, E., & Welsh, M. (1994). Measuring the difference in (X-Y) of simulated distributions: A convolutions approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 904-915.
19. Rosenberger, R. & Loomis, J. (2001). Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values. RMRS-GTR-72, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
20. Sellar, C., Stoll, J., & Chavas, J. (1985). Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: A comparison of nonmarket valuation techniques. Land Economics 61, 156-75.
21. Shaw, D., & Feather, P. (1999). Possibilities for including the opportunity cost of time in recreation demand systems. Land Economics 75, 592-602.
22. Smith, V., & Kopp, R. (1980). Spatial limits of the travel cost recreational demand model. Land Economics 56, 64-72.
23. Ward, F. (1984). Specification consideration for the price variable in travel cost demand studies. Land Economics 60, 301-305.