An efficiency approach to choice set formation: Theory and application to recreational destination choice

Applied Economics

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 333-350

  Scrogin, David ^a   Hofler, Richard ^a   Boyle, Kevin ^b   Milon, J Walter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LOCATION DECISION; LOCATION THEORY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PROBABILITY; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; STOCHASTICITY;

MAINE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77950874700     PISSN: 00036846     EISSN: 14664283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00036840701604438     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Aigner, D. J., Lovell, C. A. K. and Schmidt, P. (1977) Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models, Journal of Econometrics, 6,21-37.
2. Banzhaf, H. S. and Smith, V. K. (2003) Meta analysis in model implementation: choice sets and the valuation of air quality improvements, Discussion Paper 03-61, Resources for the Future.
3. Black, W. C. (1984) Choice-set definition in patronage modelling, Journal of Retailing, 60, 63-85.
4. Farrell, M. J. (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 120, 253-81.
5. Haab, T. C. and Hicks, R. (1997) Accounting for choice set endogeneity in random utility models for recreational demand, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 34, 127-47.
6. Haab, T. C. and Hicks, R. L. (2000) Choice set considera- tions in models of recreation demand: history and current state of the art, Marine Resource Economics, 14,271-81.
7. Haab, T. C. and McConnell, K. E. (2002) Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK.
8. Herriges, J. A. and Kling, C. (1999) Nonlinear income effects in random utility models, Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 62-72.
9. Hicks, R. L. and Strand, I. E. (2000) The extent of information: its relevance for random utility models, Land Economics, 76, 374-85.
10. Horowitz, J. L. (1991) Modelling the choice of choice set in discrete-choice random-utility models, Environment and Planning, 23, 1237-46.
11. Jensen, U. (2000) Is it efficient to analyse efficiency rankings?, Empirical Economics, 25, 189-208.
12. Klein, N. M. and Bither, S. W. (1987) An investigation of utility-directed cutoff selection, Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 240-56.
13. Kumbhakar, S. C. and Lovell, C. A. K. (2000) Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Manski, C. F. (1977) The structure of random utility models, Theory and Decision, 8, 229-54.
15. McConnell, K. E., Strand, I. E. and Blake-Hedges, L. (1995) Random utility models of recreational fishing: catching fish using a poisson process, Marine Resource Economics, 10, 247-61.
16. McFadden, D. (1978) Modelling the choice of residential location, in Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models (Eds) A. Karlqvist, L. Lundquist, F. Snickars, and J Weibull, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 75-96.
17. Morey, E. R. and Waldman, D. M. (1998) Measurement error in recreation demand models: the joint estimation of participation, site choice, and site characteristics, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 35, 262-76.
18. Palmquist, R. B. and Israngkura, A. (1999) Valuing air quality with hedonic and discrete choice models, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 1128-33.
19. Parsons, G. and Hauber, B. (1998) Spatial boundaries and choice set definition in a random utility model of recreation demand, Land Economics, 74, 32-48.
20. Parsons, G. and Kealy, M. J. (1992) Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation, Land Economics, 68, 93-106.
21. Parsons, G. R., Plantinga, A. J. and Boyle, K. J. (2000) Narrow choice sets in a random utility model of recreation demand, Land Economics, 76, 86-99.
22. Paterson, R., Scrogin, D., Boyle, K. and McNeish, D. (2001) Maine open water fishing survey: summer 1999, Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Paper No. 493, University of Maine, 2001.
23. Provencher, B. and Bishop, R. C. (2004) Does accounting for preference heterogeneity improve the forecasting of a random utility model?, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48, 793-810.
24. Riddington, G., Sinclair, C. and Milne, N. (2000) Modelling choice and switching behaviour between scottish ski centres, Applied Economics, 32, 1011-8.
25. Salant, P. and Dillman, D. (1994) How to Conduct Your Own Survey, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
26. Scrogin, D., Boyle, K., Parsons, G. and Plantinga, A. J. (2004) Effects of regulations on expected catch, expected harvest, and site choice of recreational anglers, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86,963-74.
27. Smith, V. K., Palmquist, R. B. and Jakus, P. (1991) Combining farrell frontier and hedonic travel cost models for valuing estuarine quality, Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 694-9.
28. Swait, J. (2001) Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models, Transportation Research B, 35, 643-66.
29. Swait, J. and Ben-Akiva, M. (1987) Empirical test of a constrained choice discrete model: mode choice in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Transportation Research B, 21, 103-15.
30. Thill, J. C. (1992) Choice set formation for destination choice modelling, Progress in Human Geography, 16, 361-82.
31. Train, K. (1997) Mixed logit models for recreation demand, in Valuing the Environment using Recreation Demand Models (Eds) C. Kling and J. Herriges, Elgar, New York, pp. 140-63.
32. Whitehead, J. C. and Haab, T. C. (1999) Southeast marine recreational fishing statistical survey: distance and catch based choice sets, Marine Resource Economics, 14,283-98.