Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 397–414 | Cite as

Modeling Overnight Recreation Trip Choice: Application of a Repeated Nested Multinomial Logit Model

  • W. Douglass Shaw
  • Michael T. Ozog


In this paper we apply the repeated nested multinomial logit model, a version of a random utility model (RUM), to estimate the choice of an overnight versus single day recreation trip, along with the other usual choice of which of the sites to visit, and less typically, the choice of whether to participate (in our application – to fish) at all. We also find statistically significant income effects in the empirical results. The application is to Atlantic Salmon fishing and the data set is for Maine resident angler's fishing trips to rivers in Maine and Canada.

repeated nested multinomial logit RUM recreation demand salmon fishing trip length decisions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamowicz, W., S. Jennings and A. Coyne (1990), ‘A Sequential Choice Model of Recreation Behavior', Western J. of Agricultural Econ. (July), 91–99.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. P., A. de Palma and J. Thisse (1996), Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation. Cambridge, MA, U.S.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, G. (1965), ‘A Theory of the Allocation of Time', Economic Journal 75, 493–517.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva, M. and S. R. Lerman (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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, 951–60.Google Scholar
  6. Carson, R., W. M. Hanemann and T. Wegge (1987), Southcentral Alaska Sport Fishing Economics Study. Report prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates (Sacramento, CA) for the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, H. Z., J. P. Hoehn, F. Lupi and T. Tomasi (1995), A Repeated Nested Logit Model of Fishing Participation, Site Choice and Trip Duration. Proceedings of the W-133 Regional Research Group Conference (Monterey, CA): Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, Eighth Interim Report (Complied by Doug Larson, U. of California, Davis).Google Scholar
  8. Daly, A. and S. Zachary (1979), ‘Improved Multiple Choice Models', in D. Hensher and Q. Dalvi, eds., Identifying and Measuring the Determinants of Mode Choice. Teakfield, London, pp. 335–357.Google Scholar
  9. De Serpa, A. C. (1971), ‘A Theory of the Economics of Time', Economic Journal 81, 233–246.Google Scholar
  10. Desvousges, W. H., S. M. Waters and K. Train (1996), Addendum to Report on Potential Economic Losses Associated with Recreation Services in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin (Vol. IV Submitted to U.S. District Court, Dist. of Montana). Triangle Economic Research, Durham NC 27713.Google Scholar
  11. Herriges, J. and C. Kling (1996), ‘Testing the Consistency of Nested Logit Models with Utility Maximization', Econ. Let. 50, 33–39.Google Scholar
  12. Herriges, J. and C. Kling (1997), ‘The Performance of Nested Logit Models when Welfare Estimation is the Goal', American J. of Agricultural Econ. 79, 745–767.Google Scholar
  13. Herriges, J. and C. Kling (1998), ‘Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models', Rev. of Econ. and Stat., ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, C. A. and Y. D. Sung (1991), ‘Valuation of Environmental Quality at Michigan Recreational Fishing Sites: Methodological Issues and Policy Applications', Draft Final Report prepared for the U.S. EPA, Contract No: CR-816247–01–2.Google Scholar
  15. Kaoru, Y. (1995), ‘Measuring Marine Recreation Benefits of Water Quality Improvements by the Nested Random Utility Model', Resource and Energy Econ. 17, 119–136.Google Scholar
  16. Kaoru, Y., V. K. Smith and J. Liu (1995), ‘Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources', American J. of Agricultural Econ. 77, 141–151.Google Scholar
  17. Kling, C. and J. Herriges (1995), ‘An Empirical Investigation of the Consistency of Nested Logit Models with Utility Maximization', American J. of Agricultural Econ. 77, 875–884.Google Scholar
  18. Kling, C. and C. J. Thomson (1996), ‘The Implications of Model Specification for Welfare Estimation in Nested Logit Models', American J. of Agricultural Econ. (Feb.) 78(1).Google Scholar
  19. Larson, D. (1993), ‘Joint Recreation Choices and Implied Values of Time', Land Econ. 69(3), 270–286.Google Scholar
  20. McConnell, K. E. (1992), ‘On-Site Time in the Demand for Recreation', American J. of Agricultural Econ. 74, 919–925.Google Scholar
  21. McFadden, D. (1978), ‘Modeling the Choice of Residential Location', in A. Karlquist et al., eds, Spatial Interaction Theory and Residential Location. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 75–96.Google Scholar
  22. McFadden, D. (1998), ‘Computing Willingness to Pay in Random Utility Models', Resource and Energy Economics, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  23. Morey, E. R. (1986), ‘An Introduction to Checking, Testing, and Imposing Curvature Properties: The True Function and the Estimated Function', Canadian J. of Economics XIX, pp. 207–235.Google Scholar
  24. Morey, E. R. (1994), Two Rums Uncloaked. Discussion paper, Dept. of Economics, University of Colorado and Proceedings of the W-133 Regional Research Conference, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
  25. Morey, E. R., M. Watson and R. D. Rowe (1993), ‘A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing,’ American J. of Agricultural Econ. 75, 578–592.Google Scholar
  26. Murphy, K.M. and R. H. Topel (1985), ‘Estimation and Inference in Two-Step Econometric Models', J. of Business and Economic Statistics 3, 370–379.Google Scholar
  27. Parsons, G. and M. S. Needelman (1992), ‘Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation', Land Econ. 68, 418–433.Google Scholar
  28. Pollak, R. and T. Wales (1991), ‘The Likelihood Dominance Criterion', J. of Econometrics 47, 227–242.Google Scholar
  29. RCG/Hagler, Bailly Inc. (1989), Fishing for Atlantic Salmon in Maine: An Investigation into Angler Activity and Management Options. Final consulting report prepared for Bangor Hydroelectric Company, Bangor, Maine.Google Scholar
  30. Roach, B. (1995), Valuing Travel Time by Isolating the Components of Recreation Benefits. Proceedings of the W-133 Regional Research group conference (Monterey, CA): Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resource Planning. Complied by Doug Larson, U. of California-Davis.Google Scholar
  31. Shaw, W. D. (1992), ‘Searching for the Opportunity Cost of an Individual's Time', Land Econ. 68, 107–115.Google Scholar
  32. Shaw, W. D. and P. Jakus (1996), ‘Travel Cost Models of the Demand for Rock Climbing', Agricultural and Resource Econ. Review 25(2), 133–142.Google Scholar
  33. Shonkwiler, J. S. and W. D. Shaw (1997), Aggregation of Conditional Multinomial Logit Site-Specific Demands. Discussion paper, Dept. of Applied Econ. and Stat., University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  34. Small, K. A. and H. S. Rosen (1981), ‘Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models', Econometrica 49, 105–130.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, V. K. (1997), Combining Discrete Choice and Count Data Models: A Comment. Discussion paper, School of Environmental Studies, Duke University (Durham, NC).Google Scholar
  36. Train, K. E., D. McFadden and M. Ben-Akiva (1987), ‘The Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices', Rand J. of Econ. 18, 109–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Douglass Shaw
    • 1
  • Michael T. Ozog
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Applied Economics and Statistics/204University of NevadaRenoUSA (e-mail
  2. 2.Quantitative Research GroupFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations