Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 19–41 | Cite as

Short Run Constraints and the Increasing Marginal Value of Time in Recreation

  • Raymond B. PalmquistEmail author
  • Daniel J. Phaneuf
  • V. Kerry Smith
Article

Abstract

Leisure activities such as local recreation trips usually take place in discrete blocks of time that are surrounded by time devoted to other commitments. It can be costly to transfer time between blocks to allow for longer outings. These observations affect the value of time within those blocks and suggest that traditional methods for valuing time using labor markets miss important considerations. This paper presents a new model for time valuation that uses non-employment time commitments to infer the shadow value of time spent in recreation. A unique survey that elicited revealed and stated preference data on household time allocation is used to implement the model. The results support the conclusion that there is an increasing marginal value of time for recreation as the trip length increases.

Keywords

Opportunity cost of time Time allocation Choice margins Local recreation outings 

JEL Classification

Q26 J22 D13 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker GS (1965) A theory of the allocation of time. Econ J 75: 493–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bockstael N, Strand I, Hanemann WM (1987) Time and the recreational demand model. Am J Agric Econ 69(2): 293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Wegge T (1989) A nested logit model of recreation demand in Alaska. Working paper, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  4. Cesario FJ (1976) Value of time in recreation benefit studies. Land Econ 52: 32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chetty R, Szeidl A (2007) Consumption commitments and risk preferences. Q J Econ 122: 831–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeSerpa A (1971) A theory of the economics of time. Econ J 81(324): 828–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dillman DR (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Feather PM, Shaw WD (1999) Estimating the cost of leisure time for recreation demand models. J Environ Econ Manag 38(1): 49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frazis H, Stewart J (2007) Where does time go? Concepts and measurement in the American time use survey. In: Berndt ER, Hulten CM(eds) Hard-to-measure goods and services: essays in memory of Zvi Griliches. University of Chicago Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall RE (2009) Reconciling cyclical movements in the marginal value of time and the marginal product of labor. J Polit Econ 117(2): 281–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamermesh DS (2005) Routine. In: Hamermesh DS, Pfann GA(eds) The economics of time use. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. Heckman J (1974) Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply. Econometrica 42(4): 679–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holbrook AL, Krosnick JA, Pfent A (2005) The causes and consequences of response rates in surveys by the news media and government contract survey research firms. Discussion paperGoogle Scholar
  14. Huber PJ (1967) The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. In: Proceedings of the fifth symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson MB (1966) Travel time and the price of leisure. West Econ J 4: 135–145Google Scholar
  16. Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade DA, Schwarz N, Stone AA (2004) A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science 306: 1776–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeter S, Miller C, Kohut A, Groves RM, Presser S (2000) Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opin Q 64: 125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landefeld JS, McCulla SH (2000) Accounting for non-market household production within a national accounts framework. Rev Income Wealth 46(3): 289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Larson DM, Shaikh SL (2001) Empirical specification requirements for two-constraint models of recreation choice. Am J Agric Econ 83(2): 428–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lew DK, Larson DM (2005) Accounting for stochastic shadow values of time in discrete-choice recreation demand models. J Environ Econ Manag 50(2): 341–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McConnell KE, Strand I (1981) Measuring the cost of time in recreation demand analysis: an application to sportfishing. Am J Agric Econ 63: 153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nordhaus WD (2006) Principles of national accounting for non-market accounts. In: Jorgenson DW, Landefeld JS, Nordhaus WD(eds) A new architecture for the US national accounts. University of Chicago Press for National Bureau of Economic Research, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Shaikh SL, Larson DM (2003) A two-constraint almost ideal demand model of recreation and donations. Rev Econ Stat 85(4): 953–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith VK, Desvousges W, McGivney M (1983) The opportunity cost of travel time in recreation demand models. Land Econ 59: 259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vereshchagina G (2007) Preference for risk in a dynamic model with consumption commitments. Unpublished paper, Department of Economics, Arizona State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond B. Palmquist
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel J. Phaneuf
    • 2
  • V. Kerry Smith
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA
  5. 5.National Bureau of Economic ResearchCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations