An on-site versus a household survey approach to modelling the demand for recreational angling: Do welfare estimates differ?

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 16, Issue , 2015, Pages 136-145

  Hynes, Stephen ^a   O'Reilly, Paul ^b   Corless, Rebecca ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

^b INLAND FISHERIES IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Angling; Endogenous stratification; Hurdle count data models; On site and household sampling; Recreation demand; Truncation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84946747395     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bilgic A., Florkowski W. Application of a hurdle negative binomial count data model to demand for bass fishing in the southeastern United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 83(4):478-490.
2. Cameron, A., Trivedi, P., 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York.
3. Curtis, J., 2002. Estimating the Demand for Salmon Angling in Ireland. Economic and Social Review, 33(3), 319-332.
4. Czajkowski M., Ahtiainen H., Artell J., Budziński W., Hasler B., Hasselström L., Meyerhoff J., Nõmmann T., Semeniene D., Söderqvist T., Tuhkanen H., Lankia T., Vanags A., Zandersen M., Zylicz T., Hanley N. Valuing the commons: An international study on the recreational benefits of the Baltic Sea. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 156:209-217.
5. Englin, J., Holmes, T., Sills, E., 2003. Estimating forest recreation demand using count data models. In: Sills, E. (Eds), Forests in a Market Economy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 341-359.
6. Englin J., Shonkwiler J. Estimating Social Welfare using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-run Recreation Demand under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1995, 77:104-112.
7. Fáilte Ireland A New Strategy on Irish Angling Tourism 2009, Fáilte Ireland, Dublin.
8. Flynn G. Allegations of misleading and false information surround salmon farm debate. Inshore Ireland 2013, 9(5):1-14.
9. Greene, W. H., 2007. NLOGIT 4 Econometric Modeling Guide, Volume 2, Econometric Software, Inc. New York.
10. Hilbe, J. 2007. Negative Binomial Regression, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11. Grogger, J., and Carson, R., 1991. Models for truncated counts', J. Appl. Econom., 6 (3), 225-238.
12. Hellerstein, D.M. 1991. Using count data models in travel cost analysis with aggregate data. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 73(3), 860-866.
13. Hynes S., Greene W. A panel travel cost model accounting for endogenous stratification and truncation: a latent class approach. Land Econ. 2013, 89(1):177-192.
14. Hynes S., Hanley N. Preservation versus development on Irish Rivers: Whitewater Kayaking and hydro power in Ireland. Land Use Policy 2006, 23:170-180.
15. Hynes S., Hanley N., Garvey E. Up the Proverbial Creek without a paddle: accounting for variable participant skill levels in recreational demand modelling. Environ. Nat. Resour. Econ. 2007, 36:413-426.
16. Inland Fisheries Ireland Socio-Economic Study of Recreational Angling in Ireland 2013, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Dublin.
17. Johnstone C., Markandya A. Valuing river characteristics using combined site choice and participation travel cost models. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 80:237-247.
18. Johnston, R., Ranson, M., Besedin, E., Helm, E., 2006. What determines willingness to pay per fish? A meta-analysis of recreational fishing values, Marine Resource Economics, 21, 1-32.
19. Loomis J. Travel cost demand model based river recreation benefit estimates with on-site and household surveys: comparative results and a correction procedure. Water Resour. Res. 2003, 39(4):1105.
20. Loomis J., Rosenberger R., Shrestha R. Updated estimates of recreation values for the RPA program by assessment region and use of meta-analysis for recreation benefit transfer. Final Report for the USDA Forest Service 1999, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
21. Loomis J., Walsh R. Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs 1997, Venture Publishing, Inc., Pennsylvania. 2nd ed.
22. Marine Institute A National Survey of Water-based Leisure Activities 1997, Marine Institute, Dublin.
23. Martínez-Espiñeira R., Loomis J., Amoako-Tuffour J., Hilbe J. Comparing recreation benefits from on-site versus household surveys in count data travel cost demand models with overdispersion. Tour. Econ. 2008, 14(3):567-576.
24. Martinez-Espineira R., Amoako-Tuffour J. Recreation demand analysis under truncation, overdispersion, and endogenous stratification: an application to Gros Morne National Park. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 88(4):1320-1332.
25. Meisner, C., Wang, H., 2006. Welfare measurement bias in household and on-site surveying of water-based recreation: an application to Lake Sevan, Armenia. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series no. 3932.
26. Mkwara, L., Marsh, D., 2011. Valuing trout angling benefits of water quality improvements while accounting for unobserved lake characteristics: an application to the Rotorua Lakes. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand Agricultural & Resource Economics Society Conference, Nelson, New Zealand, August 25-26, 2011.
27. Morey E., Breffle W., Rowe R., Waldman D. Estimating recreational trout fishing damages in Montana's Clark Fork River basin: summary of a natural resource damage assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 66:159-170.
28. Murdock J. Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2006, 51:1-25.
29. O'Neill C., Davis J. Alternative definitions of demand for recreational angling in Northern Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1991, 42(2):174-179.
30. Ovaskainen K., Mikkola J., Pouta E. Estimating recreation demand with onsite data: an application of truncated and endogenously stratified count data models. J. For. Econ. 2001, 7(2):125-144.
31. Parsons G.R. The travel cost model. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation 2003, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht. P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, T.C. Brown (Eds.).
32. Prayaga P., Rolfe J., Stoeckl N. The value of recreational fishing in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: a pooled revealed preference and contingent behaviour model. Mar. Policy: Int. J. Ocean Aff. 2010, 34(2):244-251.
33. Scarpa R., Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock-climbing in the North-Eastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of participation. Land Econ. 2005, 81:426-444.
34. Shaw D. On-site sample's regression: problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous selection. J. Econom. 1988, 37:211-223.
35. Shaw, D., Fadali, E., Lupi, F., 2003. Comparing consumer's surplus estimates calculated from intercept and general survey data. In: Proceedings of the W-133 (U.S.D.A.) Regional Economics Group, compiled by J. S. Shonkwiler. Las Vegas, Nevada, February, 2003.
36. Shonkwiler J., Shaw D. Hurdle count-data models in recreation demand analysis. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 1996, 21:210-219.
37. Shrestha, K., Seidl, A., Moraes, A., 2002. Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models, Ecol. Econ., 42 (1-2), 289-299.
38. Train K.E. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ. 1998, 74(2):230-239.
39. Whelan, B., March, G., 1988. An economic evaluation of irish angling. A report prepared for the Central Fisheries Board by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin.
40. Zhang F., Hu Wang X., Nunes P., Ma C. The recreational value of gold coast beaches, Australia: an application of the travel cost method. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 11:106-114.