Choice set considerations in models of recreation demand: History and current state of the art

Marine Resource Economics

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 271-281

  Haab, Timothy C ^a,b   Hicks, Robert L ^c,d  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE   (United States)

^d Dept of Economics and Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William and Mary   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880516755     PISSN: 07381360     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/mre.14.4.42629273     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Caulkins, P. 1982. An Empirical Study of the Recreational Benefits Generated by Water Quality Improvement. Ph.D. Diss. University of Wisconsin-Madison
2. Chapman, D. 1999. Consideration Sets Revealed through a Geographical Clustering Approach. Damage Assessment Center Working Paper, National Ocean Service, U.S. Department of Commerce
3. Feather, P.M. 1994. Sampling and Aggregation Issues in Random Utility Model Estimation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76:772-80
4. Haab, T., and R. Hicks. 1997. Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneity in Random Utility Models of Site Choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34:127-47 (Pubitemid 28010319)
5. Herriges, J.A., C.L. Kling, and D.J. Phaneuf. 1999. Corner Solution Models in Recreation Demand: A Comparison of Competing Frameworks. Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, J.A. Herriges and C.L. Kling, eds., Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd
6. Hicks, R., and I. Strand. "The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for RUM Models." Land Economics In press
7. Horowitz, J. 1983. Statistical Comparison of Non-nested Probabilistic Discrete Choice Models. Transportation Science 17:319-50 (Pubitemid 14453762)
8. Horowitz, J., and J. Louviere. 1995. What is the Role of Consideration Sets in Choice Modeling? International Journal of Research in Marketing 12:39-54
9. Jakus, P., M. Downing, M. Bevelhimer, and J. Fly. 1997. Do Fish Consumption Advisories Affect Reservoir Anglers' Site Choice? Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 26(2):196-204 (Pubitemid 127145788)
10. Jones, C., and F. Lupi. 1999. The Effect of Modeling Substitute Activities on Recreational Benefit Estimates: Is More Better? Marine Resource Economics 14(4):355-72
11. Kaoru, Y., V.K. Smith, and J.L. Liu. 1995. Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77:141-51
12. Kling, C., and J. Herriges. 1999. Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models. Review of Economics and Statistics 81(1):62-72
13. MacNair, D., and S. Cox. 1999. A Heteroskedastic Nested RUM of Freshwater Fishing. Marine Resource Economics 14(4):331-39
14. Manski, C. 1977. The Structure of Random Utility Models. Theory and Decision 8:229-54
15. McConnell, K., N. Bockstael, and I. Strand. 1991. Recreation. Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. J. Braden and C. Kolstad, eds. North-Holland Publishers. New York
16. McConnell, K., and W. Tseng, 1999. Some Preliminary Evidence on Sampling of Alternatives with the Random Parameters Logit. Marine Resource Economics 14(4):315-30
17. Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press
18. Morey, E. 1999. Two RUMs unCLOAKED: Nested-Logit Models of Site Choice and Nested-Logit Models of Participation and Site Choice. Valuing the Environment Using Recreation Demand Models, C.L. Kling and H. Herriges, eds., Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
19. Parsons, G., and A. Hauber. 1998. Choice Set Boundaries in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand. Land Economics 74(1):32-48 (Pubitemid 28453715)
20. Parsons, G., and M. Kealy. 1992. Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation, Land Economics 68:93-106
21. Parsons, G., D. Massey, and T. Tomasi. 2000. Familiar and Favorite Sites in a Random Utility Model of Beach Recreation. Marine Resource Economics 14(4):299-314
22. Parsons, G.R., and M.S. Needelman. 1992. Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand. Land Economics 68(4):418-33 (Pubitemid 23366622)
23. Parsons, G.R., A.J. Plantinga, and K.J. Boyle. 2000. Narrow Choice Sets in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand. Land Economics In press
24. Peters, T., W. Adamowicz, and P. Boxall. 1995. The Influence of Choice Set Consideration in Modeling the Benefits of Improved Water Quality. Water Resources Research. 613, 1781-87 (Pubitemid 26430447)
25. Phaneuf, D., and J. Herriges. 2000. Choice Set Definition Issues in a Kuhn-Tucker Model of Recreation Demand. Marine Resource Economics 14(4):341-53
26. Swait, J., and M. Ben-Akiva. 1987. Incorporating Random Constraints in Discrete Choice Models of Choice Set Generation. Transportation Research B. 21B, 91-102 (Pubitemid 17587819)
27. Thill, J. 1992. Choice Set Formation for Destination Choice Modelling. Progress in Human Geography 16 (3):361-82 (Pubitemid 23368815)
28. Whitehead, J. and T. Haab. 2000. Southeast MRFSS: Distance and Catch Based Choice Sets. Marine Resource Economics 14(4):283-98