Using revealed and stated preference data to estimate the scope and access benefits associated with cave diving

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 107-118

  Morgan, O Ashton ^a   Huth, William L ^b  

^a APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Access; Revealed and stated behavior; Scope effects; Travel cost preferences

Indexed keywords

ACCESS; CAVE SYSTEM; CONSUMER SURPLUS; FLORIDA; MODEL SPECIFICATIONS; POTENTIAL SITES; REVEALED AND STATED BEHAVIOR; SCOPE EFFECTS; SITE QUALITY; STATED PREFERENCES; TRAVEL COSTS;

CAVES; COSTS; ESTIMATION; TRANSPORTATION;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ACCESSIBILITY; DATA SET; ESTIMATION METHOD; NUMERICAL MODEL; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SCUBA DIVING;

FLORIDA [UNITED STATES]; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78649938103     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bonn, M.A., Bell, F.W., 2003. Economic Impact of Selected Florida Springs on Surrounding Local Areas. Report for Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Division of State Lands, Florida Springs Task Force.
2. Carson R.T. Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. Determining the Value of Non-Market Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods 1997, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. R.J. Kopp, W.W. Pommeerehne, N. Schwarz (Eds.).
3. Egan K., Herriges J. Multivariate count data regression models with individual data from an on-site sample. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 52:567-581.
4. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Outdoor Recreation in Florida-2007: Florida's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2009, Florida DEP, Tallahassee.
5. Grijalva T.C., Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., Shaw W.D. Testing the validity of contingent behavior trip responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2002, 84(2):401-414.
6. Hausman J., Hallm B., Griliches Z. Econometric models for count data with an application to patents. Econometrica 1984, 52:909-938.
7. Huang J.-C., Haab T.C., Whitehead J.C. Willingness to pay for quality improvements: should revealed and stated preference data be combined?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 34:240-255.
8. List J.A., Gallet C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20:241-254.
9. Loomis J.B. An investigation into the reliability of intended visitation behavior. Environmental and Resource Economics 1993, 3:183-191.
10. McConnell K.E., Strand I.E., Blake-Hedges L. Random utility models of recreational fishing: catching fish using a Poisson process. Marine Resource Economics 1995, 10:247-262.
11. Miller J.A. Hydrogeology of Florida. The Geology of Florida 1997, 69-88. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. A. Randazzo, D.S. Jones (Eds.).
12. Moeltner K., Englin J. Choice behavior under time-variant quality: state dependence versus "play-it-by-ear" in selecting ski resorts. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 2004, 22(2):214-224.
13. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:313-325.
14. Nordlie F.G. Rivers and springs. Ecosystems of Florida, 1990 1990, 392-425. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. R.L. Myers, J.H. Ewel (Eds.).
15. Parsons G.R. The travel cost model. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. P.A. Champ, K. Boyle, T. Brown (Eds.).
16. Powe N.A., Bateman I.J. Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Economics 2004, 82(2):258-271.
17. Provencher B., Bishop R. An estimable dynamic model of recreation behavior with an application to great lakes angling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33(1):107-127.
18. Rosenberg R.S., Loomis J.B. The value of ranch open space to tourists: combining observed and contingent behavior data. Growth and Change 1999, 30:366-383.
19. Schkade D.A., Payne J.W. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26(1):88-109.
20. Scott T.M., Means G.H., Meegan R.P., Means R.C., Upchurch S.B., Copeland R.E., Jones J., Roberts T., Willet A. Springs of Florida 2004, Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
21. Whitehead J.C., Finney S.S. Willingness to pay for submerged maritime cultural resources. Journal of Cultural Economics 2003, 27:231-240.
22. Whitehead J.C. Environmental risk and averting behavior: predictive validity of jointly estimated revealed and stated behavior data. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 32:301-316.
23. Whitehead J.C., Phaneuf D., Dumas C.F., Herstine J., Hill J., Buerger B. Convergent validity of revealed and stated recreation behavior with quality change: a comparison of multiple and single site demands. Environmental and Resource Economics 2010, 45:91-112.