IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-09-00091.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of recreation benefit by household production function approach

Author

Listed:
  • Yasuhisa Hayashiyama

    (Tohoku University)

  • Katsuhito Nohara

    (Tohoku University)

Abstract

The travel cost method (TCM) is a revealed preference approach to evaluating the recreation benefit. The traditional application of the TCM is to measure the consumer surplus of recreation sites and activities by calculating the consumer surplus of the site as the area below the demand function and above the implicit price. However, TCM has a setup problem of choke price. The purpose of this paper is to propose the evaluating theory of recreation benefit of environmental quality improvements by household production function approach with revealed preference data. Our approach suggested is operational and allows to decide whether the behavior observed and the household production functions are consistent.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasuhisa Hayashiyama & Katsuhito Nohara, 2009. "Evaluation of recreation benefit by household production function approach," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(2), pages 693-701.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-09-00091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2009/Volume29/EB-09-V29-I2-P20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ebert, Udo, 2007. "Revealed preference and household production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 276-289, March.
    2. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
    3. Timothy J. Bartik, 2008. "Evaluating the Benefits of Non-marginal Reductions in Pollution Using Information on Defensive Expenditures," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers, in: Joseph Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.),Revealed Preference Approaches to Environmental Valuation, volume 0, pages 459-475, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    4. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Bradford, David F. & Hildebrandt, Gregory G., 1977. "Observable preferences for public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 111-131, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tadahiro Okuyama, 2017. "A risk benefit calculation method based on consumer behavior and household risk production function," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(2), pages 645-652.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Crooker, John R., 2007. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare with Measurement Error in Prices: Techniques for Non-Market Resource Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 239-252, October.
    2. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    3. Neill, Jon R., 2022. "Using consumer’s surplus to bound willingness to pay for non-market goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Ebert, Udo, 2007. "Revealed preference and household production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 276-289, March.
    5. Martini, Chiara & Tiezzi, Silvia, 2014. "Is the environment a luxury? An empirical investigation using revealed preferences and household production," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 147-167.
    6. Bockstael, Nancy E. & Freeman III, A. Myrick, 2006. "Welfare Theory and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 12, pages 517-570, Elsevier.
    7. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Maddison, David & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2011. "The impact of climate on life satisfaction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2437-2445.
    9. Bowker, James Michael & Starbuck, C. Meghan & English, Donald B.K. & Bergstrom, John C. & Rosenberger, Randall S. & McCollum, Daniel W., 2009. "Estimating the Net Economic Value of National Forest Recreation: An Application of the National Visitor Use Monitoring Database," Faculty Series 59603, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    10. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 1999. "Controlling for Correlation Across Choice Occasions and Sites in a Repeated Mixed Logit Model of Recreation Demand," Western Region Archives 321717, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    11. Catherine Heyes & Anthony Heyes, 1999. "Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 124-139, January.
    12. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    13. Livengood, Kerry R., 1981. "Bias in Recreation Benefit Estimates: Further Evidence," 1981 Annual Meeting, July 26-29, Clemson, South Carolina 279406, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. JOHN McMILLAN, 1979. "The Free‐Rider Problem: A Survey," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 55(2), pages 95-107, June.
    15. Melstrom, Richard & Lupi, Frank, 2012. "Using a Control Function to Resolve the Travel Cost Endogeneity Problem in Recreation Demand Models," MPRA Paper 48036, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2013.
    16. Leslie Richardson & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2013. "Valuing Morbidity from Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparison of Revealed and Stated Preference Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 76-100.
    17. John C. Whitehead & Thomas J. Hoban & George Van Houtven, 1999. "Averting Behavior and Drinking Water Quality," Working Papers 9905, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    18. Chen, Kee-Kuo & Ho, Hui-Ping & Chang, Ching-Ter, 2015. "Estimating attributes importance for container shipping industry by closing the listening gap with maximum convergent validity," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 145-163.
    19. Bukenya, James O., 2006. "Household Perceptions Of The Quality Of Drinking Water In Uganda," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35355, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. V. Smith & Mary Evans & H. Banzhaf & Christine Poulos, 2010. "Can Weak Substitution be Rehabilitated?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 203-221, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    household production function; revealed preference; recreation benefit;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • D0 - Microeconomics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-09-00091. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.