Combining RP and SP data while accounting for large choice sets and travel mode – an application to forest recreation

References

• Abildtrup, J., S. Garcia, S.B. Olsen, and A. Stenger. 2013. “Spatial Preference Heterogeneity in Forest Recreation.” Ecological Economics 92: 67–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaumais, O., and G. Appéré. 2010. “Recreational Shellfish Harvesting and Health Risks: A Pseudo-panel Approach Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data with Correction for On-site Sampling.” Ecological Economics 69 (12): 2315–2322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, K.P., and I.E. Strand. 2003. “Reconciling Models of Recreational Route and Site Choices.” Land Economics 79 (3): 440–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhat, C.R., and S. Castelar. 2002. “A Unified Mixed Logit Framework for Modeling Revealed and Stated Preferences: Formulation and Application to Congestion Pricing Analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 36 (7): 593–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bockstael, N.E., W.M. Hanemann, and C.L. Kling. 1987. “Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a Recreational Demand Framework.” Water Resources Research 23 (5): 951–960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bockstael, N.E., and K.E. McConnell. 2007. “Environmental and Resource Valuation with Revealed Preferences. A Theoretical Guide to Empirical Models.” Vol. 7 of The Economics of Non-market Good and Services. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bougherara, D., S. Costa, and M. Teisl. 2013. “Making or Buying Environmental Public Goods: Do Consumers Care?” Land Economics 89 (4): 767–781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownstone, D., D.S. Bunch, and K.E. Train. 2000. “Joint Mixed Logit Models of Stated and Revealed Preferences for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 34 (5): 315–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D., D.A. Hensher, and R. Scarpa. 2014. “Bounding WTP Distributions to Reflect the ‘Actual’ Consideration Set.” Journal of Choice Modelling 11: 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Cesario, F.J. 1976. “Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies.” Land Economics 52 (1): 32–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChoiceMetrics. 2014. “Ngene 1.1.2 User Manual and Reference Guide.” https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9406880/NgeneManual112.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Domanski, A., and R.H. Von Haefen. 2010. “Recreation Demand Models with Large Choice Sets.” Paper presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 2009 Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, July 26–28.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle, S., M. Dodge, and A. Smith. 1998. “The Potential of Web-Based Mapping and Virtual Reality Technologies for Modelling Urban Environments.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 22 (2): 137–155.
   Google Scholar
• Englin, J.E., and J.S. Shonkwiler. 1995. “Modeling Recreation Demand in the Presence of Unobservable Travel Costs: Toward a Travel Price Model.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (3): 368–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming, C.M., and M. Bowden. 2009. “Web-Based Surveys As an Alternative to Traditional Mail Methods.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (1): 284–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frejinger, E., M. Bierlaire, and M. Ben-akiva. 2009. “Sampling of Alternatives for Route Choice Modeling.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 43 (10): 984–994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, S., and J. Jacob. 2009. “La valeur récréative de la forêt en France: Une approche par les coûts de déplacement.” Revue d’Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement 91 (1): 43–71.
   Google Scholar
• Haab, T.C., and R.L. Hicks. 1997. “Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneity in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34 (2): 127–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haab, T.C., and R.L. Hicks. 2000. “Choice Set Considerations in Models of Recreation Demand: History and Current State of the Art.” Marine Resource Economics 14 ( Aug.): 271–281.
   Google Scholar
• Hanley, N.D., W.D. Shaw, and R.E. Wright. 2003. The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Hensher, D.A. 2008. “Empirical Approaches to Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data: Some Recent Developments with Reference to Urban Mode Choice.” Research in Transportation Economics 23 (1): 23–29.
   Google Scholar
• Hensher, D.A., and W.H. Greene. 2003. “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.” Transportation 30 (2): 133–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher, D.A., J.M. Rose, and W.H. Greene. 2008. “Combining RP and SP Data: Biases in Using the Nested Logit “Trick” – Contrasts with Flexible Mixed Logit Incorporating Panel and Scale Effects.” Journal of Transport Geography 16 (2): 126–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks, R.L., and I.E. Strand. 2000. “The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models.” Land Economics 76 (3): 374–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horni, A., D. Charypar, and K.W. Axhausen. 2010. “Empirically Approaching Destination Choice Set Formation.” Working Paper. Zurich: Transport and Spatial Planning, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, J., T.C. Haab, and J.C. Whitehead. 1997. “Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Should Revealed and Stated Preference Data Be Combined?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34 (3): 240–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hynes, S., and W.H. Greene. 2013. “A Panel Travel Cost Model Accounting for Endogenous Stratification and Truncation: A Latent Class Approach.” Land Economics 89 (1): 177–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuriyama, K., W. Michael Hanemann, and J.R. Hilger. 2010. “A Latent Segmentation Approach to a Kuhn–Tucker Model: An Application to Recreation Demand.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 60 (3): 209–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemp, J.D., and K.M. Kockelman. 2012. “Strategic Sampling for Large Choice Sets in Estimation and Application.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46 (3): 602–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupi, F., and P.M. Feather. 1998. “Using Partial Site Aggregation to Reduce Bias in Random Utility Travel Cost Models.” Water Resources Research 34 (12): 3595–3603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marta-Pedroso, C., H. Freitas, and T. Domingos. 2007. “Testing for the Survey Mode Effect on Contingent Valuation Data Quality: A Case Study of Web Based Versus In-person Interviews.” Ecological Economics 62 (3–4): 388–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, D.L. 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by P. Zarembka, 105–142. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, D.L. 1977. “Modeling the Choice of Residential Location.” Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 477. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
   Google Scholar
• Montagne, C., P. Harou, S. Garcia, J. Jacob, A. Stenger, S. Navrud, and A. Bartczak. 2008. “Référentiel pour l’Evaluation Economique des Biens, Services et Dommages Environnementaux Liés à la Forêt Française.” Rapport. Nancy: Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, J.J., P.G. Allen, T.H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead. 2005. “A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation.” Environmental & Resource Economics 30 (3): 313–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nerella, S., and C.R. Bhat. 2004. “A Numerical Analysis of the Effect of Sampling of Alternatives in Discrete Choice Models.” Transportation Research Record 1894 (1): 11–19.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, A.B., S.B. Olsen, and T. Lundhede. 2007. “An Economic Valuation of the Recreational Benefits Associated with Nature-Based Forest Management Practices.” Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (1–2): 63–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Normandin, D. 1998. “Une évaluation de la demande sociale de services environnementaux de la forêt.” INRA Sciences Sociales, Recherches en Économie et Sociologies Rurales 1998 (2): 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, S.B. 2009. “Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-market Goods.” Environmental and Resource Economics 44 (4): 591–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, G.R., and M.J. Kealy. 1992. “Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets Model in a Random Utility of Lake Recreation.” Land Economics 68 (1): 93–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, G.R., A.J. Plantinga, and K.J. Boyle. 2000. “Narrow Choice Sets in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand.” Land Economics 76 (1): 86–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peyron, J., J. Bakouma, A. Berthier, O. Colnard, D. Normandin, A. Stenger, and A. Tessier. 2001. “Première évaluation économique globale des dégâts forestiers dus aux tempêtes de décembre 1999.” Rapport. Nancy: Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière.
   Google Scholar
• Peyron, J., P. Harou, A. Niedzwiedz, and A. Stenger. 2002. “National Survey on Demand for Recreation in French Forests.” Rapport. Nancy: Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière.
   Google Scholar
• Phaneuf, D.J. 2011. “Can Consumption of Convenience Products Reveal the Opportunity Cost of Time?” Economics Letters 113 (1): 92–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phaneuf, D.J., C.L. Kling, and J.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 82 (1): 83–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarpa, R., W.G. Hutchinson, S.M. Chilton, and J. Buongiorno. 2000. “Importance of Forest Attributes in the Willingness to Pay for Recreation: A Contingent Valuation Study of Irish Forests.” Forest Policy and Economics 1 (3–4): 315–329.
   Google Scholar
• Shonkwiler, J., and J.E. Englin. 2005. “Welfare Losses Due to Livestock Grazing on Public Lands: A Count Data Systemwide Treatment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (May): 302–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swait, J., and J. Louviere. 1993. “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (3): 305–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Termansen, M., H. Skov-Petersen, and C.J. McClean. 2004. “Recreational Site Choice Modelling Using High-Resolution Spatial Data.” Environment and Planning A 36 (6): 1085–1099.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Termansen, M., M. Zandersen, and C. Mcclean. 2008. “Spatial Substitution Patterns in Forest Recreation.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 38 (1): 81–97.
   Google Scholar
• Thirion, E. 2010. “Utilisation d’un système d’informations géographiques pour caractériser l’usage récréatif des forêts de Lorraine.” Rapport LERFoB. Nancy: AgroParisTech.
   Google Scholar
• Train, K.E. 1998. “Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People.” Land Economics 74 (2): 230–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead, J.C., S.K. Pattanayak, G.L. Van Houtven, and B.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 22 (5): 872–908.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar