Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 413–426 | Cite as

Up the Proverbial Creek without a Paddle: Accounting for Variable Participant Skill Levels in Recreational Demand Modelling



We adapt the standard random utility model to take account of the heterogeneity of recreational preferences by using what we call a “skilled-based conditional logit framework”. By separating out our sample of whitewater kayakers into two exogenously identifiable groups (based on their skill level) and running separate conditional logits for each group we are able to take account of the fact that kayakers of different skill levels are looking for different characteristics from the whitewater site they choose to visit. We find that not taking into account the differences in the skill of the kayakers and the grade of the river will result in an overestimation of the welfare estimates associated with improvements to lower grade whitewater sites (which are frequented by basic/intermediated proficiency level kayakers) and underestimating welfare estimates associated with changes in the attributes of higher grade whitewater sites (which are frequented by advanced proficiency level kayakers).


preference heterogeneity Random Utility Model skill levels whitewater kayaking 

JEL classification

Q51 Q56 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamowicz W. (1994) Habit Formation and Variety Seeking in a Discrete Choice Model of Recreation Demand. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(1):19–31Google Scholar
  2. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J., Williams M. (1997) Perceptions Versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker G., Murphy K. (1988) A Theory of Rational Addiction. Journal of Political Economy 96(4):675–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davidson P., Adams F., Seneca J. (1966) The Social Value of Water Recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement in Water Quality: The Delaware Estuary. In: Kneese A, Smith S. (eds). Water Research. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  5. Hanemann, W. (1984), ‚Welfare Analysis with Discrete Choice Models’, Working Paper, Dep. of Agricultural and Resource Economics. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. Hanley N., Koop G., Alvarez-Farizo B., Wright R., Nevin C. (2001) Go Climb a Mountain: an Application of Recreation Demand Modelling to Rock Climbing in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 52:36–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanley N., Alvarez-Farizo B., Shaw D. (2002) Rationing an Open-access Resource: Mountaineering in Scotland. Land Use Policy 19:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanley N, Bell D., Alvarez-Farizo B (2003) Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour. Environmental and Resource Economics 24(3):273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hynes, S., N. Hanley and C. O’ Donoghue (2004), ‚Measuring the Opportunity Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Modelling: an Application to a Random Utility Model Of Whitewater Kayaking in Ireland’, Department of Economics Working Paper No. 87, National University of Ireland, GalwayGoogle Scholar
  10. MacGearailt, S. (1996), Irish Whitewater – A Guide to Irish Whitewater Rivers and Surf, Dublin: Fontwork Graphics PublishersGoogle Scholar
  11. McConnell K., I. Strand N. Bockstael, (1990), Habit Formation and the Demand for Recreation: Issues and a Case Study, in A. N. Link, V. Kerry Smith, eds, Advances in Applied Micro Economics, vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI PressGoogle Scholar
  12. McConnell, K. and I. Strand (1994), ‚The Economic Value of Mid and South Atlantic Sportfishing’, University of Maryland, Report to the USEPA and NOAAGoogle Scholar
  13. McFadden D., (1974) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. In: Zarembka P. (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Morey E. (1981) The Demand for Site-specific Recreational Activities: a Characteristics Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8:345–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morey, E., W. Breffle, R. Rowe and D. Waldman (2003), ‚Estimating Recreational Trout Fishing Damages in Montana’s Clarke River Basin: Summary of a Natural Resource Damage Assessment’, in N. Hanley, D. Shaw and R. Wright, eds., The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Edward Elgar Publishing LtdGoogle Scholar
  16. Munley V., Smith V. (1976) Learning-by-Doing and Experience: the Case of Whitewater Recreation. Land Economics 52(4):545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parsons, G. and M. Massey (2003), ‚A RUM Model of Beach Recreation’ in N. Hanley, D. Shaw and R. Wright, eds., The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Edward Elgar Publishing LtdGoogle Scholar
  18. Provencher B., Bishop R. (2004) Does Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity Improve the Forecasting of a Random Utility Model? A Case Study Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48:793–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Siderelis C., Brothers G., Rea P. (1995) A Boating Choice Model for the Valuation of Lake Access. Journal of Leisure Research 27(3):264–282Google Scholar
  20. Shaw, D. and P. Jakus (1996), ‚Travel Cost Models of the Demand for Rock Climbing’, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 25, 133–142Google Scholar
  21. Smith, K. (1997), ‚Time and the Valuation of Environmental Resources’, Duke Economics Working Paper No: 97–36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rural Economy Research CentreGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Economics DepartmentUniversity of StirlingStirlingScotland
  3. 3.Economics Department National University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations