Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 481–497

A Random Parameter Model with Onsite Sampling for Recreation Site Choice: An Application to Southern California Shoreline Sportfishing



Estimation of consistent parameter estimates for recreational demand models faces challenges arising from the choice-based nature of the data collected primarily for resource management purposes. As an alternative to randomized respondent-based sampling, choice-based onsite sampling can provide information on actual choices made by a subset of the population where participation has a low incidence. While the literature has shown that under specific restrictions the estimation of choice models from onsite sampling data yields unbiased fixed parameter estimates for the conditional logit model, this result does not carry over to estimation of the random parameter logit model. We propose an estimator for the unbiased estimation of the random parameter model using choice-based data; our estimator uses weights based on information about the level of sampling effort. An empirical application of the standard and weighted discrete choice RUM models to onsite sample data on recreational fishing illustrates the advantages of the proposed estimator. The estimation results indicate the compensating variation associated with an decrease, or increase, of 50 % in expected catch rates for a recreational shoreline sportfishing trip to a man-made structure in southern California is \(-{\$}2.80\) or \({\$}3.54\) per trip, respectively.


Onsite sampling Recreation demand Random utility models  Random parameter logit Recreational fishing 


  1. Amemiya T, Vuong QH (1987) A comparison of two consistent estimators in the choice-based sampling qualitative response model. Econometrica 55(3):699–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bierlaire M, Bolduc D, McFadden D (2008) The estimation of generalized extreme value models from choice-based samples. Transp Res Part B: Methodol 42(4):381–394Google Scholar
  3. California Recreational Fisheries Survey (CRFS) (2012) http://data.recfin.org/wiki/index.php/California_Recreational_Fisheries_Survey 2 June 2012
  4. Cosslett S (1981) Efficient estimation of discrete choice models. In: Manski C, McFadden D (eds) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 51–111Google Scholar
  5. Egan K, Herriges J (2006) Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample. J Environ Econ Manag 52(2):567–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Englin J, Shonkwiler JS (1995) Estimating social welfare using count data models: an application to long-run recreation demand under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation. Rev Econ Stat 77(1):104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hilger J, Hanemann M (2006) Heterogeneous preferences for water quality: a finite mixture model of beach recreation in Southern California. California Sea Grant College Program, Research Completion Reports, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  8. Hindsley P, Landry CE, Genter B (2011) Addressing onsite sampling in recreation site choice models. J Environ Econ Manag 62(1):95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Imbens G (1992) An efficient method of moments estimator for discrete choice models with choice-based sampling. Econometrica 60(5):1187–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuriyama K, Hanemann WM, Hilger JR (2010) A latent segmentation approach to a Kuhn-Tucker model: an application to recreation demand. J Environ Econ Manag 60(3):209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manski C, Lerman S (1977) The estimation of choice probabilities from choice-based samples. Econometrica 45(8):1977–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manski C, McFadden D (1981) Alternative estimators and sample designs for discrete choice analysis. In: Manski C, McFadden D (eds) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric application. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 2–50Google Scholar
  14. Moeltner K, Shonkwiler JS (2005) Correcting for on-site sampling in random utility models. Am J Agric Econ 87(2):327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2011) Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2009. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-118, 172 pGoogle Scholar
  16. RecFin (2011) California recreational fisheries survey. http://data.recfin.org/ 16 Februaury 2011
  17. Shaw D (1988) On-site samples regression: problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification. J Econom 37(2):211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Train K (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Train KE (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econom 74(2):230–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. von Haefen RH, Phaneuf DJ (2005) Kuhn-Tucker demand system approaches to non-market valuation. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Springer, New York, pp 135–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koichi Kuriyama
    • 1
  • James Hilger
    • 2
  • Michael Hanemann
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Natural Resource Economics, Graduate School of AgricultureKyoto UniversitySakyo-ku, KyotoJapan
  2. 2.Fisheries Resource Division, Southwest Fisheries Science CenterNational Marine Fisheries ServiceLa JollaUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations