Convergent validity of contingent behavior responses in models of recreation demand

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 223-250

  Jeon, Yongsik ^a   Herriges, Joseph A ^b  

^a Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (SAIT)   (South Korea)

^b IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent behavior; Nonmarket valuation

Indexed keywords

LAKES;

CONTINGENT BEHAVIOR; CONVERGENT VALIDITY; DEMAND MODELING; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; NON-MARKET VALUATION; QUALITY VARIATION; STATED RESPONSE;

SURVEYS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY;

IOWA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77950461770     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-009-9313-5     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manage 26: 271-292.
2. Adamowicz W, Swait J, Boxall P, Louvier J, Williams M (1997) Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 32: 65-84.
3. Azevedo CD, Herriges JA, Kling CL (2003) Combining revealed and stated preference: consistency tests and their interpretations. Am J Agric Econ 85: 525-537.
4. Ben-Akiva M, T. Morikawa (1990) Estimation of switching models from revealed pereferences and stated intentions. Transp Res 24: 485-495.
5. Cameron TA, Shaw WD, Ragland SE, Callaway JM, Keefe S (1996) Using actual and contingent behavior data with differing levels of time aggregation to model recreation demand. J Agri Resour Econ 21(1): 130-149.
6. Egan KJ, Herriges JA, Kling CL, Downing JA (2008) Recreational demand using physical measures of water quality. Am J Agri Econ (forthcoming).
7. Englin J, Cameron TA (1996) Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data: poisson regression analyses with individual panel data. Environ Resour Econ 7: 133-147.
8. Grijalva C, Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Shaw WD (2002) Testing the validity of contingent behavior trip responses. Am J Agri Econ 84: 401-414.
9. Herriges JA, Phaneuf D (2002) Introducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. Am J Agri Econ 84: 1076-1090.
10. Layman R, Boyce R, Criddle K (1996) Economic valuation of the chinook salmon sport fishery of the Gulkana River, Alaska, under current and alternate management plans. Land Econ 72: 113-128.
11. Loomis JB (1997) Panel estimators to combine revealed and stated preference dichotomous choice data. J Agri Resour Econ 22: 233-245.
12. Loomis JB, Richardson RB (2006) An external validity test of intended behavior: comparing revealed preference and intended visitation in response to climate change. J Environ Plann Manage 49(4): 621-630.
13. McFadden D, K Train (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econom 15(5): 447-470.
14. Mitchell R, R. Carson (1986) Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington.
15. Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 80: 647-657.
16. Train K (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ 74(2): 230-239.
17. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
18. Whitehead JC, Phaneuf DJ, Dumas CF, Herstine J, Hill J, Buerger B, (2007) Convergent validity of revealed and stated recreation behavior with quality change: a comparison of multiple and single site demands, Working paper, September.