IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aesc10/91827.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reducing Bias from Choice Experiments Estimates in the Demand for Recreation

Author

Listed:
  • Longo, Alberto
  • Rowan, Emma
  • Hutchinson, W. George

Abstract

In valuing the demand for recreation, the literature has grown from using revealed preference methods to applying stated preference methods, namely contingent valuation and choice modelling. Recent attempts have merged revealed and stated preference data to exploit the strengths of both sources of data. We use contingent behaviour and choice experiments data to show that, with choice experiments exercises, when respondents are asked to choose which improvement programme they prefer for a site with recreational opportunities, failing to consider the information explaining the number of visits that respondents intend to take to a recreational site under each hypothetical programme leads to biased coefficients estimates in the models for the choice experiments data.

Suggested Citation

  • Longo, Alberto & Rowan, Emma & Hutchinson, W. George, 2010. "Reducing Bias from Choice Experiments Estimates in the Demand for Recreation," 84th Annual Conference, March 29-31, 2010, Edinburgh, Scotland 91827, Agricultural Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc10:91827
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.91827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/91827/files/88Longo%20Rowan%20Hutchinson2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.91827?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. 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.
    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. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    2. Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Hazel Bateman & Arthur van Soest & Johan Bonekamp, 2022. "Saving preferences after retirement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/342267, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Clifton, Judith & Díaz-Fuentes, Daniel & Fernández-Gutiérrez, Marcos, 2013. "How consumers’ socio-economic background influences satisfaction: Insights for better utility regulation," MPRA Paper 47271, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. 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.
    5. Voltaire, Louinord & Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Pirrone, Claudio & Larzillière, Agathe, 2017. "Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 47-55.
    6. de Koning, Koen & Filatova, Tatiana & Bin, Okmyung, 2017. "Bridging the Gap Between Revealed and Stated Preferences in Flood-prone Housing Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.
    7. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    8. Häggquist, Elisabeth & Söderholm, Patrik, 2015. "The economic value of geological information: Synthesis and directions for future research," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 91-100.
    9. 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.
    10. Irene Mussio & Sylvia Brandt & Michael Hanemann, 2021. "Parental beliefs and willingness to pay for reduction in their child's asthma symptoms: A joint estimation approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 129-143, January.
    11. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    12. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian & Binner, Amy & Ferrini, Silvia & Fezzi, Carlo, 2019. "Structurally-consistent estimation of use and nonuse values for landscape-wide environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    13. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    14. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Jo, Manseok & Shin, Jungwoo & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Impact of rebate program for energy-efficient household appliances on consumer purchasing decisions: The case of electric rice cookers in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1394-1403.
    15. Hynes, Stephen & Greene, William, 2012. "Panel Travel Cost Count Data Models for On-Site Samples that Incorporate Unobserved Heterogeneity with Respect to the Impact of the Explanatory Variables," Working Papers 148834, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    16. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    17. Dennis Guignet & Anna Alberini, 2015. "Can Property Values Capture Changes in Environmental Health Risks? Evidence from a Stated Preference Study in Italy and the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 501-517, March.
    18. Rowan, Emma & Longo, Alberto, 2009. "Enriching Stakeholder participation through Environmental Valuation; Eliciting Preferences for a National Park Designation in Northern Ireland," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51071, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Dennis Guignet & Anna Alberini, 2013. "Can Property Values Capture Changes in Environmental Health Risks? Evidence from a Stated Preference Study in Italy and the UK," Working Papers 2013.67, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. Santos, Julie I. & Uchida, Emi & Anderson, Christopher M. & Swallow, Stephen K., 2010. "Do Stated Preference Values Predict Revealed Behavior in “New” Markets for Ecosystem Services? A Comparison of Experiments Addressing Establishing A Market for Farmland Ecosystem Services," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61694, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aesc10:91827. 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/aesukea.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.