valuing short term beach closure in a rum model of recreation demand using stated preference data
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Valuing Short Term Beach Closure in a RUM Model of Recreation Demand Using Stated Preference Data

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

Valuing Short Term Beach Closure in a RUM Model of Recreation Demand Using Stated Preference Data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 279 Views
  • Uploaded on

Valuing Short Term Beach Closure in a RUM Model of Recreation Demand Using Stated Preference Data Stela Stefanova and George R. Parsons Camp Resources XV August 6 – 7, Wilmington, NC Acknowledgements Funded by the National Park Service

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Valuing Short Term Beach Closure in a RUM Model of Recreation Demand Using Stated Preference Data' - paul


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
valuing short term beach closure in a rum model of recreation demand using stated preference data

Valuing Short Term Beach Closure in a RUM Model of Recreation Demand Using Stated Preference Data

StelaStefanova and George R. Parsons

Camp Resources XV

August 6 – 7, Wilmington, NC

acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
  • Funded by the National Park Service
  • Funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Response Research Center at the University of New Hampshire
  • Presently under consideration for a chapter in: “Preference Data for Environmental Valuation”, eds. John Whitehead, Ju-Chin Huang and Tim Haab
outline
Outline
  • Motivation
  • Data
  • Padre Island National Seashore Park
  • Linked Model and Welfare
  • Our Approach to Incorporating Delayed Trips
  • Coefficient and Welfare estimates
  • Conclusion
motivation
Motivation
  • Random Utility Models (RUM) are well suited for valuing seasonal closures of sites
  • However, RUM are not well suited for valuing short term closures when there is substitution across time periods within the same season
  • Short term closures may have little impact on total visitation to the closed site
  • People may be delaying trips, in effect substituting across time periods
slide5
Data
  • 884 Texas residents living within 200 miles of the Texas Gulf Coast
  • 2692 day trips taken to 65 Texas Gulf Coast beaches between May and September, 2001
  • Limited choice set to beaches within 300 miles of residence
padre island national seashore
Padre Island National Seashore

Padre Island is located near Corpus Christi, Texas.

66 miles along the Texas Gulf Coast

Accessible by car, approximately 30 minutes from Corpus Christi and approximately 2.5 hours from San Antonio.

North Beach, Malaquite Beach, South Beach, Little Shell and Big Shell Beaches, Mansfield cut

14% of people visited Padre beaches - 394 trips

a linked model of site choice and trip frequency
A Linked Model of Site Choice and Trip Frequency
  • Step 1: Discrete choice site selection
    • Logit
    • Mixed Logit
  • Step 2: Trip frequency
    • Negative binomial
  • Bockstael, Hanemann, and Kling. 1987.
  • Herriges, Kling, and Phaneuf. 1999.
  • Parsons, Jakus, and Tomasi. 2003.
three measures of welfare loss
Three Measures of Welfare Loss
  • Per trip
  • Per season
  • Loss to trip ratio
strategy for incorporating delayed trips using sp
Strategy for Incorporating Delayed Trips Using SP
  • These welfare measures rely on RP data
  • Do not capture substitution across time periods in the case of a short term closure
  • Survey questions offered the following options in case of site closure
    • visit another site now
    • stay home now but visit the closed site later to “make up” for the lost trip
    • stay home without making up the trip later
strategy for incorporating delayed trips using sp13
Strategy for Incorporating Delayed Trips Using SP

Two Models

Padre Open Model

RP data on all trips

Padre Closed Model

RP data on trips to Padre is replaced with SP data *

Trips to other sites assumed the same

* The scaling parameter on the SP choices relative to the RP choices vanishes in estimation.

Brownstone, Bunch, and Train. 2000.

strategy for incorporating delayed trips in welfare measures using sp
Strategy for Incorporating Delayed Trips in Welfare Measures Using SP

Padre Open (RP data)

Choice set:

Conventional Approach Our Approach

Padre Closed (RP) Padre Closed (RP/SP)

Choice set: Choice set:

non Padre sites delayed trips to Padre

Padre sites

strategy for incorporating delayed trips in welfare measures using sp15
Strategy for Incorporating Delayed Trips in Welfare Measures Using SP

Padre Open (RP data)

Padre Utility:

Conventional Approach Our Approach

Padre Closed (RP) Padre Closed (RP/SP)

Padre Utility: Padre Utility:

0

strategy for incorporating delayed trips in welfare measures using sp16
Strategy for Incorporating Delayed Trips in Welfare Measures Using SP

Padre Open (RP data)

Expected Utility:

Padre Closed (RP)

Padre Closed (RP/SP)

strategy for incorporating delayed trips in welfare measures using sp17
Strategy for Incorporating Delayed Trips in Welfare Measures Using SP

Padre Closed - Conventional Approach

Padre Closed - Accounting For Delayed Trips

results mixed logit
Results Mixed Logit

Unconstrained in Padre Closed

conclusion
Conclusion
  • Included the alternative of delaying a trip in a conventional RUM
  • Estimated losses are 72% to 77% lower when delayed trips are incorporated in the model
references
References
  • 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, no. 5: 951-60.
  • Parsons, G. R., P. Jakus, and T. Tomasi. 2003. A comparison of welfare estimates from four models for linking seasonal recreational trips to multinomial models of site choice,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38(2): 143-157.
  • Brownstone, D., D. S. Bunch, and K. Train. 2000. Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Record B, 34.
step 2 trip frequency
Step 2: Trip frequency
  • Negative binomial model
ad