Predicting fishing participation and site choice while accounting for spatial substitution, trip timing, and trip context

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 832-847

  Hunt, Len M ^a   Boots, Barry N ^b   Boxall, Peter C ^c  

^a ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES   (Canada)

^b WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGLING; FISHERY MANAGEMENT; FISHING; MODELING; PERCID; PREDICTION; SITE SELECTION;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA; ONTARIO [CANADA];

SANDER VITREUS;

EID: 35348860330     PISSN: 02755947     EISSN: 15488675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1577/M06-079.1     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. 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.
2. Barenklau, K. A., and W. Provencher. 2005. Static modeling of dynamic recreation behavior: implications for prediction and welfare estimation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50:617-636.
3. Berman, M. D., and H. J. Kim. 1999. Endogenous on-site time in recreation demand model. Land Economics 75:603-619.
4. Bhat, C. R., and J. Guo. 2004. A mixed spatially correlated logit model: formulation and application to residential choice modeling. Transportation Research, Part B 38:147-168.
5. DuWors, E., M. Villeneuve, F. L. Filion, R. Reid, P. Bouchard, and D. Legg et al. 1999. The importance of nature to Canadians: survey highlights. Environment Canada, Ottawa.
6. Fletcher, J. J., W. L. Adamowicz, and T. Graham-Tomasi. 1990. The travel cost model of recreation demand: theoretical and empirical issues. Leisure Sciences 12:119-147.
7. Herriges, J. A., and D. J. Phaneuf. 2002. Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84:1076-1090.
8. Hunt, L. M. 2005. Choice models and recreational fishing site choice: insights and future opportunities. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:153-172.
9. Hunt, L. M. 2006. Modelling relationships between road access and recreational fishing site choice while accounting for spatial complexities. Doctoral dissertation. Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario.
10. Kaoru, Y. 1995. Measuring marine recreation benefits of water quality improvements by the nested random utility model. Resource and Energy Economics 17:119-136.
11. Lester, N. P., T. R. Marshall, K. Armstrong, W. I. Dunlop, and B. Ritchie. 2003. A broad-scale approach to management of Ontario's recreational fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:1312-1328.
12. McFadden, D. 1978. Modelling the choice of residential location. Pages 75-96 in A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, F. Snickars, and J. W. Weibull, editors. Spatial interaction theory and planning models, volume 3. North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam.
13. Morey, E. R., R. D. Rowe, and M. Watson. 1993. A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic salmon fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75:578-592.
14. Parsons, G. R., P. M. Jakus, and T. Tomasi. 1999. 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.
15. Peters, T., W. L. Adamowicz, and P. C. Boxall. 1995. Influence of choice set considerations in modeling the benefits from improved water quality. Water Resources Research 31:1781-1787.
16. Provencher, W., K. A. Baerenklau, and R. C. Bishop. 1997. An estimable dynamic model of recreation behaviour with an application to Great Lakes angling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33:107-127.
17. Provencher, W., K. A. Baerenklau, and R. C. Bishop. 2002. A finite mixture logit model of recreational angling with serially correlated random utility. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84:1066-1075.
18. Provencher, W., and R. C. Bishop. 2004. Does accounting for preference heterogeneity improve the forecasting of a random utility model? A case study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48:793-810.
19. Shaw, W. D., and M. T. Ozog. 1999. Modeling overnight recreation trip choice: application of a repeated nested multinomial logit model. Environmental and Resource Economics 13:397-414.
20. Shelby, B., and J. J. Vaske. 1991. Resource and activity substitutes for recreational salmon fishing in New Zealand. Leisure Sciences 13:21-32.
21. Smith, M. D. 2005. State dependence and heterogeneity in fishing location choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50:319-340.
22. Statistics Canada. 2002. A national overview - population and dwelling counts, 2001 census. Statistics Canada, Catalog 93-360-XPB, Ottawa.
23. Swait, J. F., W. L. Adamowicz, and M. van Bueren. 2004. Choice and temporal welfare impacts: incorporating history into discrete choice models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47:94-116.
24. Thurstone, L. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 34:273-286.
25. Train, K. E. 1998. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 74:230-239.
26. Train, K. E. 2003. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
27. Wen, C.-H., and F. S. Koppelman. 2001. The generalized nested logit model. Transportation Research, Part B 35:627-641.