IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v80y2004i4p561-574.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aggregation Bias in Recreation Site Choice Models: Resolving the Resolution Problem

Author

Listed:
  • M. K. Haener
  • P. C. Boxall
  • W. L. Adamowicz
  • D. H. Kuhnke

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of differing levels of spatial resolution on recreation site choice models and welfare resulting from changes in site attributes. These issues are important where the spatial scale at which recreationists make choices is unknown, but information exists on choice attributes at larger spatial scales. We estimate choice models at various scales of spatial resolution and incorporate the size of the aggregate sites and heterogeneity parameters in the model. Accounting for the size of the aggregates in estimation improved model fit and alleviated aggregate parameter bias. We provide advice for applied modeling based on these results.

Suggested Citation

  • M. K. Haener & P. C. Boxall & W. L. Adamowicz & D. H. Kuhnke, 2004. "Aggregation Bias in Recreation Site Choice Models: Resolving the Resolution Problem," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:80:y:2004:i:4:p561-574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/80/4/561
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoshiaki Kaoru & V. Kerry Smith & Jin Long Liu, 1995. "Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 141-151.
    2. Mark R. Ferguson & Pavlos S. Kanaroglou, 1995. "Utility Variability within Aggregate Spatial Units and its Relevance to Discrete Models of Destination Choice," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Luc Anselin & Raymond J. G. M. Florax (ed.), New Directions in Spatial Econometrics, chapter 11, pages 243-269, Springer.
    3. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    4. M. K. Haener & P. C. Boxall & W. L. Adamowicz, 2001. "Modeling Recreation Site Choice: Do Hypothetical Choices Reflect Actual Behavior?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 629-642.
    5. Mark R. Ferguson & Pavlos S. Kanaroglou, 1997. "An Empirical Evaluation of the Aggregated Spatial Choice Model," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 20(1-2), pages 53-75, April.
    6. George R. Parsons & Michael S. Needelman, 1992. "Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(4), pages 418-433.
    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. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    2. Landry, Craig E. & Shonkwiler, J. Scott & Whitehead, John C., 2020. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Existence Values with recreation demand and contingent valuation data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    3. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    4. Riera, Pere & Signorello, Giovanni & Thiene, Mara & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Navrud, Ståle & Kaval, Pamela & Rulleau, Benedicte & Mavsar, Robert & Madureira, Lívia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Elsasser, Pe, 2012. "Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 259-270.
    5. von Haefen, Roger H. & Domanski, Adam, 2018. "Estimation and welfare analysis from mixed logit models with large choice sets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 101-118.
    6. Kunhikrishnan, Parthan & Srinivasan, Karthik K., 2018. "Investigating behavioral differences in the choice of distinct Intermediate Public Transport (IPT) modes for work trips in Chennai city," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 111-122.
    7. Hwa Nyeon Kim & W. Douglass Shaw & Richard T. Woodward, 2007. "The Distributional Impacts of Recreational Fees: A Discrete Choice Model with Incomplete Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 561-574.
    8. Knoche, Scott & Lupi, Frank & Suiter, Ashley, 2015. "Harvesting benefits from habitat restoration: Influence of landscape position on economic benefits to pheasant hunters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 97-105.
    9. Backstrom, Jesse D. & Woodward, Richard T., 2017. "Using Qualitative Site Characteristics Data in Marine Recreational Fishing Models: A New Site Aggregation Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258276, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Marianne Zandersen & Mette Termansen & Frank Søndergaard Jensen, 2007. "Testing Benefits Transfer of Forest Recreation Values over a Twenty-Year Time Horizon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(3), pages 412-440.
    11. Hindsley, Paul & Landry, Craig E. & Gentner, Brad, 2011. "Addressing onsite sampling in recreation site choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 95-110, July.
    12. Yongjie Ji & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2016. "Modeling Recreation Demand When the Access Point Is Unknown," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 860-880.
    13. Chen, Min & Lupi, Frank, 2013. "Modeling Long Overnight Trips by Chaining Recreation Sites," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150489, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Shiva Habibi & Emma Frejinger & Marcus Sundberg, 2019. "An empirical study on aggregation of alternatives and its influence on prediction in car type choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 563-582, June.
    15. Yip, Arthur H.C. & Michalek, Jeremy J. & Whitefoot, Kate S., 2018. "On the implications of using composite vehicles in choice model prediction," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 163-188.

    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. Stafford, Tess M., 2018. "Accounting for outside options in discrete choice models: An application to commercial fishing effort," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 159-179.
    2. Hicks, Robert L., 2002. "A Comparison Of Stated And Revealed Preference Methods For Fisheries Management," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19853, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Yip, Arthur H.C. & Michalek, Jeremy J. & Whitefoot, Kate S., 2018. "On the implications of using composite vehicles in choice model prediction," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 163-188.
    4. Birol, Ekin & Kontoleon, Andreas & Smale, Melinda, 2006. "Combining revealed and stated preference methods to assess the private value of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian home gardens:," EPTD discussion papers 156, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    6. W. Bowman Cutter & Linwood Pendleton & J. R. DeShazo, 2007. "Activities in Models of Recreational Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(3), pages 370-381.
    7. Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2000. "Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 339-354, October.
    8. Daniel J. Phaneuf & Catherine L. Kling & Joseph A. Herriges, 2000. "Estimation and Welfare Calculations in a Generalized Corner Solution Model with an Application to Recreation Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 83-92, February.
    9. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    10. Kaoru, Yoshiaki, 1995. "Measuring marine recreation benefits of water quality improvements by the nested random utility model," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 119-136, August.
    11. Hocheol Jeon & Joseph A. Herriges, 2017. "Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1053-1086, December.
    12. H. Allen Klaiber & Roger H. von Haefen, 2019. "Do Random Coefficients and Alternative Specific Constants Improve Policy Analysis? An Empirical Investigation of Model Fit and Prediction," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 75-91, May.
    13. Bennett, Michael & Provencher, Bill & Bishop, Richard C., 2004. "Experience, Expectations and Hindsight: Evidence of a Cognitive Wedge in Stated Preference Retrospectives," Staff Papers 12642, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    14. Yongjie Ji & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2016. "Modeling Recreation Demand When the Access Point Is Unknown," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 860-880.
    15. Jason C. Kinnell & Matthew F. Bingham & Ateesha F. Mohamed & William H. Desvousges & Thomas B. Kiler & Elizabeth K. Hastings & Karen T. Kuhns, 2006. "Estimating Site Choice Decisions for Urban Recreators," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 257-272.
    16. 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.
    17. Bennett, Michael & Provencher, Bill & Bishop, Richard, 2004. "Experience, Expectations and Hindsight: Evidence of a Cognitive Wedge in Stated Preference Retrospectives," Staff Paper Series 468, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    18. Elizabeth Fadali & W. Douglass Shaw, 1998. "Can Recreation Values For A Lake Constitute A Market For Banked Agricultural Water?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(4), pages 433-441, October.
    19. Linwood Pendleton & Robert Mendelsohn, 2000. "Estimating Recreation Preferences Using Hedonic Travel Cost and Random Utility Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 89-108, September.
    20. Folkersen, Maja Vinde, 2018. "Ecosystem valuation: Changing discourse in a time of climate change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:uwp:landec:v:80:y:2004:i:4:p561-574. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.