Valuing beach closures on the padre island national seashore

Marine Resource Economics

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 213-235

  Parsons, George R ^a,c   Kang, Ami K ^a,c   Leggett, Christopher G ^b   Boyle, Kevin J ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^b Industrial Economics Incorporated   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^d VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Beach use; Mixed logit; Random utility model

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449814347     PISSN: 07381360     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/mre.24.3.42629652     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Binkley C.S., and W.M. Hanemann. 1978. The Recreation Benefits of Water Quality Improvement: Analysis of Day Trips in an Urban Setting. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2. Bockstael, N.E., W.M. Hanemann, and C.L. Kling. 1987. Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a Recreational Demand Framework. Water Resources Research 23(5):951-960 (Pubitemid 18304974)
3. Bockstael, N.E., W.M. Hanemann, and I. E. Strand Jr. 1984. Measuring the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Using Recreation Demand Models, University of Maryland, Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4. Bockstael, N.E., and K.E. McConnell. 2007. Environmental and Resource Valuation with Revealed Preferences. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
5. Bockstael, N., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1988. Benefits From Improvements in Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Volume II. University of Maryland, Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
6. Dorfman, M., and K.S. Rosselot. 2009. Testing the Water: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches. Natural Resources Defense Council Report, http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/ttw2009.pdf
7. Environmental Economics Research Group. 1998. Natural Resource Damage Assessment for the Tampa Bay Oil Spill: Recreational Use Losses for Florida Residents. Draft Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
8. Feenberg, D., and E.S. Mills. 1980. Empirical Studies of Instream Benefits. Measuring the Benefits of Water Pollution Abatement, Chapter 7, D. Feenberg and E. Mills, eds., pp. 105-135 New York, NY: Academic Press.
9. Greene, W. 2008. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10. Haab, T.C., and R.L. Hicks. 1997. Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneiry in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34(2): 127-147
11. Haab, T.C., and K.E. McConnell. 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Northampton, ME, USA and Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
12. Hanemann, W.M. 1978. A Methodological and Empirical Study of the Recreation Benefits from Water Quality Improvements. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
13. -. 1999. Welfare Analysis with Discrete Choice Models. Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, Chapter 2, C Kling and J. Herriges, eds., pp. 33-64. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
14. Hanemann, W.M., L. Pendelton, and C. Mohn. 2005. Welfare Estimates for Five Scenarios of Water Quality Change in Southern California. University of California at Berkeley, Report to the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
15. Hanemann, W.M., L. Pendelton, C. Mohn, J. Hilger, K. Kurisawa, D. Layton, C. Busch, and F. Vasquez. 2004. Using Revealed Preference Models to Estimate the Effect of Coastal Water Quality on Beach Choice in Southern California. University of California at Berkeley, Report to the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
16. Hauber, A.B. and G.R. Parsons. 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.
17. Hausman, J.A., G.K. 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): 1-30.
18. Hellerstein, D. 1999. Can we Count on Count Models? Valuing Recreation and the Environment, Chapter 10, C. Kling and J. Herriges, eds., pp. 271-283 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
19. Herriges, J.A., and C.L. Kling. 1997. The Performance of Nested Logit Models when Welfare Estimation is the Goal. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79:792-802.
20. Herriges, J. A., C.L. Kling, and D.J. Phaneuf. 1999. Corner Solution Models of Recreation Demand: A Comparison of Competing Frameworks. Valuing Recreation and the Environment, Chapter 6, C. Kling and J. Herriges, eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
21. Hicks, R.L., and I.E. Strand. 2000. The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models. Land Economics 76(3):374-385
22. Hilger, J., and M. Hanneman. 2006. Heterogeneous Preferences for Water Quality: a Finite Mixture Model of Beach Recreation in Southern California. University of California at Berkeley, California Sea Grant College Program. Research Completion Reports.
23. Leggett, C.G., N.S. Kleckner, K.J. Boyle, J.W. Duffield, and R.C. Mitchell. 2003. Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews. Land Economics 79(4):561-575
24. Lew, D.K. 2002. Valuing Recreation, Time, and Water Quality Improvements Using Non-Market Valuation: An Application to San Diego Beaches. Ph.D. Dissertation, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, CA.
25. Lew, D.K., and D.M. Larson. 2005a. Accounting for Stochastic Shadow Values of Time in Discrete-Choice Recreation Demand Models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50(2):341-361
26. -. 2005b. Valuing Recreation and Amenities at San Diego County Beaches. Coastal Management 33:71-86.
27. - 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
28. Massey, D.M. 2002. Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.
29. McConnell, K.E. 1986. The Damages to Recreation Activities from PCB's in New Bedford Harbor. University of Maryland, Report prepared for Ocean Assessment Division, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
30. Morey, E., R.D. Rowe, and M. Watson. 1993. A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75:578-592
31. Murray, C.J. 1999. Determining Welfare Effects for Changes in Water Quality and Beach Amenities for Ohio Lake Erie Beaches Using a Random Utility Model. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
32. Murray, C., B. Sohngen, and L. Pendelton. 2001. Valuing Water Quality Advisories and Beach Amenities in the Great Lakes. Water Resources Research 37(10):2583-2590 (Pubitemid 32908207)
33. Parsons, G.R. 2003. The Travel Cost Model. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources: A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Chapter 9, P. Champ, K. Boyle, and T. Brown, eds., pp. 269-329. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34. Parsons, G.R., and A.B. Hauber. 1998. Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand. Land Economics 74(1):32-48.
35. Parsons, G.R., P. Jakus, and T. Tomasi. 1999. A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal and Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 38:143-157
36. Parsons, G.R., and D.M. Massey. 2003. A Random Utility Model of Beach Recreation. The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Chapter 12, N. Hanley, D. Shaw, and R. Wright, eds. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
37. Parsons, G.R., D.M. Massey, and T. Tomasi. 1999. Familiar and Favorite Sites in a Random Utility Model of Beach Recreation. Marine Resource Economics 14:299-315.
38. Phaneuf, D., C.L. Kling, and J.A. Herriges. 1998. Valuing Water Quality Improvements Using Revealed Preference Methods When Corner Solutions Are Present. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(5): 1025-1031 (Pubitemid 29388890)
39. Train, K.E. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
40. von Haefen, R.H., D.M. Massey, and W.L. Adamowicz. 2005. Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(4): 1061-1076 (Pubitemid 41800952)
41. von Haefen, R.H., D.J. Phaneuf, and G.R. Parsons. 2004. Estimation and Welfare Analysis with Large Demand Systems. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 22(2):194-205. (Pubitemid 38544998)
42. Whitehead, J.C, D. Phaneuf, C.F. Dumas, J. Herstine, J. Hill, and B. Buerger. 2009. Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Preference Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands. Environmental and Resource Economics, forthcoming.