IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea01/20761.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decision Sequence in the Nested-Logit Model of Recreation Choice: An Application to Oregon Marine Sport Fishing (DRAFT)

Author

Listed:
  • Shaikh, Sabina L.
  • Larson, Douglas M.

Abstract

The varying researcher assumptions about model specification in nested-logit random utility models can have significant effects on model estimates and corresponding welfare measures. Using a three-level nested-logit model of Oregon marine sport fishing, we estimate and compare several models with varying assumptions of choice sequence and income effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaikh, Sabina L. & Larson, Douglas M., 2001. "Decision Sequence in the Nested-Logit Model of Recreation Choice: An Application to Oregon Marine Sport Fishing (DRAFT)," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20761, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea01:20761
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.20761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/20761/files/sp01sh04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.20761?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Brett Hauber & George R. Parsons, 2000. "The Effect of Nesting Structure Specification on Welfare Estimation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand: An Application to the Demand for Recreational Fishing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 501-514.
    2. Douglas M. Larson & Sabina L. Shaikh, 2001. "Empirical Specification Requirements for Two-Constraint Models of Recreation Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 428-440.
    3. Catherine L. Kling & Cynthia J. Thomson, 1996. "The Implications of Model Specification for Welfare Estimation in Nested Logit Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 103-114.
    4. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1999. "Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(1), pages 62-72, February.
    5. Edward R. Morey & Robert D. Rowe & Michael Watson, 1993. "A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 578-592.
    6. W. Shaw & Michael Ozog, 1999. "Modeling Overnight Recreation Trip Choice: Application of a Repeated Nested Multinomial Logit Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(4), pages 397-414, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    2. Min Qiang Zhao & Ju-Chin Huang, 2018. "The Representative Consumer Approximation Bias in Discrete Choice Welfare Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 969-984, December.
    3. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2002. "Quality Adjustment for Spatially-Delineated Public Goods: Theory and Application to Cost-of-Living Indices in Los Angeles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-10-, Resources for the Future.
    4. Richard Batley & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 337-366, September.
    5. Constant I. Tra, 2013. "Nonlinear income effects in random utility models: revisiting the accuracy of the representative consumer approximation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 55-63, January.
    6. Dagsvik John K., 2010. "Making Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach Operational: A Random Scale Framework for Empirical Modeling," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201005, University of Turin.
    7. Schwabe, Kurt A. & Schuhmann, Peter W., 1999. "The Value Of Increasing The Length Of Deer Season In Ohio," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21574, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Edward Morey & Kathleen Rossmann, 2008. "Calculating, With Income Effects, the Compensating Variation for a State Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 83-90, February.
    9. Sabina L. Shaikh & Douglas M. Larson, 2003. "A Two-Constraint Almost Ideal Demand Model of Recreation and Donations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 953-961, November.
    10. Crooker, John & Kling, Catherine L., 2000. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare Measures: A New Tool for Nonmarket Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 145-161, March.
    11. Lew, Daniel K. & Larson, Douglas M., 2005. "Accounting for stochastic shadow values of time in discrete-choice recreation demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 341-361, September.
    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. Parvaneh Shahnoori & Glenn P. Jenkins, 2019. "Valuation of the Quality Attributes of Online Banking Services by Small and Medium Enterprises Engaged in International Trade," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 87(1), pages 65-81, March.
    14. Kathleen P. Bell & Ivar E. Strand, 2003. "Reconciling Models of Recreational Route and Site Choices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(3), pages 440-454.
    15. Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Indifference based value of time measures for Random Regret Minimisation models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 10-20.
    16. Dundas, Steven J. & von Haefen, Roger H., 2019. "The Effects of Weather on Recreational Fishing Demand and Adaptation: Implications for a Changing Climate," CEnREP Working Papers 283949, North Carolina State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    17. Nick Hanley & Gary Koop & Begoña Álvarez‐Farizo & Robert E. Wright & Ceara Nevin, 2001. "Go climb a mountain: an application of recreation demand modelling to rock climbing in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 36-52, January.
    18. Jaume Puig & Marc Sáez & Esther Martínez Garcia, 1998. "Health care provider choice in the case of patient-initiated contacts. An extended version of discrete choice of model demand," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 308, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    19. A. de Palma & K. Kilani, 2003. "Compensating Variation for Discrete Choice Models," THEMA Working Papers 2003-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    20. Lew, Daniel K., 1999. "Multi-Purpose Trip Valuation in Recreation Demand Models: Some Methodological Approaches," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 271486, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aaea01:20761. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.