The Travel Cost Model

  • George R. Parsons
Chapter
Part of the The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources book series (ENGO, volume 3)

Abstract

The travel cost model is used to value recreational uses of the environment. For example, it may be used to value the recreation loss associated with a beach closure due to an oil spill or to value the recreation gain associated with improved water quality on a river. The model is commonly applied in benefit-cost analyses and in natural resource damage assessments where recreation values play a role. Since the model is based on observed behavior, it is used to estimate use values only.

Keywords

Random Utility Model Recreation Site Random Utility Model Recreation Demand Site Utility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamowicz, W. L. 1994. Habit Formation and Variety Seeking in a Discrete Choice Model of Recreation Demand. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(1):19–31.Google Scholar
  2. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1994. Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:271–92.Google Scholar
  3. Adamowicz, W. L., J. Swait, P. Boxall, and M. Williams. 1997. Perception Versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Evaluation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32:65–84.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, T. 1996. A Discrete Choice Model of Recreational Trout Angler Benefits in Pennsylvania. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, West Chester University.Google Scholar
  5. Ben-Akiva, M., and S. Lerman. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bockstael, N. E. 1995. Travel Cost Models. Handbook of Environmental Economics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bockstael, N. E., and I. E. Strand. 1987. The Effect of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates. Land Economics 63(1):11–20.Google Scholar
  8. Bockstael, N., 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.Google Scholar
  9. Bockstael, N. E., W. M. Hanemann, and I. E. Strand, Jr. 1984. Measuring the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Using Recreation Demand Models. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  10. Bockstael, N. E., K. E. McConnell, and I. E. Strand. 1988. Benefits from Improvements in Chesapeake Bay Water Quality. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  11. Bockstael, N. E., K.E. McConnell, and I. E. Strand. 1989. A Random Utility Model for Sportfishing: Some Preliminary Results for Florida. Marine Resource Economics 6:245–260.Google Scholar
  12. Bockstael, N. E., K. E. McConnell, and I. E. Strand, Jr. 1991. Recreation: Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  13. Bockstael, N. E., I. E. Strand, and W. M. Hanemann. 1987. Time and the Recreational Demand Model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics:293–302.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, G. M., R. Congar, and E. A. Wilman. 1983. Recreation: Tourists and Residents. In Assessing the Social Costs of Oil Spills: The Amoco Cadiz Case Study. U.S. National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report (NTIS PB83-100536). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, G., and R. Mendelsohn. 1984. The Hedonic Travel Cost Method. Review of Economics and Statistics 66:427–433.Google Scholar
  16. Burt, O., and D. Brewer. 1971. Estimation of net Social Benefits from Outdoor Recreation. Econometrica 39(5):813–828.Google Scholar
  17. Chen, H. Z., and S. R. Cosslett. 1998. Environmental Quality Preference and Benefit Estimation in Multinomial Probit Models: A Simulation Approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(3):512–520.Google Scholar
  18. Cicchetti, C. J., A. C. Fisher, and V. K. Smith. 1976. An Econometric Evaluation of a Generalized Consumer Surplus Measure: The Mineral King Controversy. Econometrica 44(6):1259–1276.Google Scholar
  19. Creel, M. D., and J. B. Loomis. 1990. Theoretical and Empirical Advantages of Truncated Count Data Estimators for Analysis of Deer Hunting in California. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72:434–441.Google Scholar
  20. Dilman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2ndedition). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Feather, P., and W. D. Shaw. 1999. Estimating the Cost of Leisure Time for Recreation Demand Models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38:49–65.Google Scholar
  22. Freeman, A. M. III. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, W. H. 1997. Econometric Analysis (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Haab, T. C., and K. E. McConnell. 1996. Count Data Models and the Problem of Zeros in Recreation Demand Analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78:89–102.Google Scholar
  25. Haab, T. C, and K. E. McConnell. 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  26. Hackett, S. C. 2000. The Recreational Economic Value of the Eastern Trinity Alps Wilderness. School of Business and Economics, Humbolt State University.Google Scholar
  27. Hanemann, W. M. 1999. Welfare Analysis with Discrete Choice Models. In Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by Herriges, J. A., and C. L. Kling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  28. Hauber, A. H. IV, and G. R. Parsons. 2000. The Effect of nesting Structure on Welfare Estimation in Random Utility Models: An Application to the Demand for Recreational Fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82:501–514.Google Scholar
  29. Hausman, J. A., G K. Leonard, and D. McFadden. 1995. A Utility-Consistent, Combined Discrete Choice and Count Data Model: Assessing Recreational Use Losses Due to Natural Resource Damage. Journal of Public Economics 56:1–30.Google Scholar
  30. Hellerstein, D. 1999. Can We Count on Count Models? In Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by Herriges, J. A., and C. L. Kling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Hellerstein, D., and R. Mendelsohn. 1993. A Theoretical Foundation for Count Data Models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75:604–11.Google Scholar
  32. Herriges, J. A., and C. L. Kling, eds. 1999. Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  33. Herriges, J. A., C. L. Kling, and D. J. Phaneuf. 1999. Corner Solution Models of Recreation Demand: A Comparison of Competing Frameworks. In Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by Herriges, J. A., and C. L. Kling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Hicks, R. L. and I. Strand. 2000. The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models. Land Economics 76(3):374–385.Google Scholar
  35. Hoehn, J. P., T. Tomasi, F. Lupi, and H. Z. Chen. 1996. An Economic Model for Valuing Recreational Angling Resources in Michigan. Michigan State University, Report to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.Google Scholar
  36. Karou, Y. S1995. Measuring Marine Recreation Benefits of Water Quality Improvements by the Nested Random Utility Model. Resource and Energy Economics 17:119–136.Google Scholar
  37. Kolstad, C. D. 2000. Environmental Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Laitila, T. 1999. Estimation of Combined Site-Choice and Trip-Frequency Models of Recreational Demand Using Choice-Based and On site Samples. Economic Letters 64:17–23.Google Scholar
  39. Layman, R. C, J. R. Boyce, and K. R. Criddle. 1996. Economic Valuation of the Chinook Salmon Sport Fishery of the Gulkana River, Alaska, under Current and Alternate Management Plans. Land Economics 72(1):113–128.Google Scholar
  40. Loomis, J. B., and R. G. Walsh. 1997. Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs. State College, PA: Venture.Google Scholar
  41. Lupi, F., and P. M. Feather. 1998. Using Partial Aggregation to Reduce Bias in Random Utility Travel Cost Models. Water Resources Research 34(12):3595–3603.Google Scholar
  42. McConnell, K. E. 1986. The Damages to Recreational Activities from PCB’s in New Bedford Harbor. University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Report prepared for the Ocean Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Google Scholar
  43. McConnell, K. E. 1992. On site Time in the Demand for Recreation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74:918–925.Google Scholar
  44. McConnell, K E., I. Strand, and L. Blake-Hedges. 1995. Random Utility Models of Recreational Fishing: Catching Fish Using a Poisson Process. Marine Resource Economics 10:247–261.Google Scholar
  45. McConnell, K. E., and I. E. Strand. 1981. Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63:153–156.Google Scholar
  46. McConnell, K. E. and I. E. Strand. 1994. The Economic Value of Mid and South Atlantic Sportfishing. University of Maryland, Report to the U.S. EPA and NOAA. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  47. McFadden, D. 2001. Economic Choices. American Economic Review 91(3):351–378.Google Scholar
  48. Mendelsohn, R., J. Hof, G. Peterson, and R. Johnson. 1992. Measuring Recreation Values with Multiple Destination Trips. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74:926–933.Google Scholar
  49. Montgomery, M. and M. Needelman. 1997. The Welfare Effects of Toxic Contamination in Freshwater Fish. Land Economics 73:211–223.Google Scholar
  50. Morey, E. 1981. The Demand for Site-Specific Recreational Activities: A Characteristics Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8:345–371.Google Scholar
  51. Morey, E. 1999. Two Rums Uncloaked: Nested-Logit Models of Site Choice and Nested-Logit Models of Participation and Site Choice. Chapter 3 in Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by Herriges, J. A., and C. L. Kling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  52. Morey, E., R. D. Rowe, and M. Watson. 1993. A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75:578–592.Google Scholar
  53. Murray, C, B. Sohngen, and L. Pendelton. 2001. Valuing Water Quality Advisories and Beach Amenities in the Great Lakes. Water Resources Research 37(10):2583–2590.Google Scholar
  54. Ozuna, T., and I. A. Gomez 1994. Estimating a System of Recreation Demand Function Using a Seemingly Unrelated Poisson Regression Approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 76:356–360.Google Scholar
  55. Parsons, G. R. 1991. A Note on Choice of Residential Location in Travel Cost Demand Models. Land Economics 67(3):360–364.Google Scholar
  56. Parsons, G. R., and M J. Kealy. 1992. Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation. Land Economics 68(1):93–106.Google Scholar
  57. Parsons, G. R., and M. Needelman. 1992. Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation. Land Economics 68(4):418–433.Google Scholar
  58. Parsons, G. R., and A. J. Wilson. 1997. Incidental and Joint Consumption in Recreation Demand. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 26:1–6.Google Scholar
  59. Parsons, G. R., and A. B. Hauber. 1998. Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand. Land Economics 74(1):32–48.Google Scholar
  60. Parsons, G R., P. M. Jakus, and T. Tomasi. 1999. A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38:143–157.Google Scholar
  61. Parsons, G. R., D. M. Massey, and T. Tomasi. 1999. Familiar and Favorite Sites in a Random Utility Model of Beach Recreation. Marine Resource Economics 14:299–315.Google Scholar
  62. Parsons, G. R., and D. M. Massey. 2003. A RUM Model of Beach Recreation. In The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Edited by Hanely, N., W. D. Shaw, R. E. Wright, and J. C. Coleman. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  63. 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.Google Scholar
  64. Peters, T., W. L. Adamowicz, and P. C. Boxall. 1995. Influence of Choice Set Considerations in Modeling the Benefits from Improved Water Quality. Water Resources Research 31(7):T781–1787.Google Scholar
  65. Phaneuf, D. J., C. L. Kling, and J. Herriges. 2000. Estimation and Welfare Calculation in a Generalized Corner Solution Model With an Application to Recreation Demand. Review of Economics and Statistics 82:83–92.Google Scholar
  66. Phaneuf, D. J. and V. K. Smith. 2002. Recreation Demand Models. Unpublished manuscript, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  67. Randall, A. 1994. A Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method. Land Economics 70(1):88–96.Google Scholar
  68. Shaw, D. 1988. ‘On site Samples’ Regression Problems of Nonnegative Integers, Truncation, and Enodgenous Stratification. Journal of Econometrics 37:211–223.Google Scholar
  69. Shaw, W. D., and P. Jakus. 1996. Travel Cost Models of the Demand for Rock Climbing. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 25(2):133–142.Google Scholar
  70. Shaw, W. D., and M. Ozog. 1999. Modeling Overnight Recreation Trip Choice: Application of a Repeated Multinomial Logit Model. Environmental and Resource Economics 13(4):397–414.Google Scholar
  71. Shonkwiler, J. S. 1999. Recreation Demand Systems for Multiple Site Count Data Travel Cost Models. Chapter 9 in Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by Herriges, J. A., and C. L. Kling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  72. Shonkwiler, J. S. and W. D. Shaw. 1996. Hurdle Count-Data Models in recreation Demand Analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(2):210–219.Google Scholar
  73. Siderelis, C, G. Brothers, and P. Rea. 1995. A Boating Choice Model for the Valuation of Lake Access. Journal of Leisure Research 27(3):264–282.Google Scholar
  74. Siderelis, C, and R. Moore. 1995. Outdoor Recreation Net Benefits of Rail-Trails. Journal of Leisure Research 27(4):344–359.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, V. K., W. H. Desvousges, and M. P. McGivney. 1983. The Opportunity Cost of Travel Time in Recreation Demand Models. Land Economics 59(3):259–277.Google Scholar
  76. Smith, V. K, and W. H. Desvousges. 1985. The Generalized Travel Cost Model and Water Quality Benefits: A Reconsideration. Southern Economics Journal 52(2):371–381.Google Scholar
  77. Smith, V. K., W. H. Desvousges, and M. P. McGivney. 1983. Estimating Water Quality Benefits: An Econometric Analysis. Southern Economic Journal 50(2):422–437.Google Scholar
  78. Sohngen, B. 2000. The Value of Day Trips to Lake Erie Beaches. Unpublished report, Dept. of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  79. Train, K. E. 1999. Mixed Logit Models for Recreation Demand. Chapter 4 in Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by Herriges, J. A., and C. L. Kling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  80. Ward, F. A., and D. Beal. 2000. Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models: A Manuel. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • George R. Parsons
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DelawareUSA

Personalised recommendations