Discrete and Continuous Preference Heterogeneity in a Kuhn-Tucker Model: Beach Recreational Demand

References

1. 1. Allenby, Greg M., and
   2. Peter E. Rossi

   . 1998. “Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity.” Journal of Econometrics 89 (1–2): 57-78.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
2. 1. Baerenklau, Kenneth A.

   2010. “A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Endogenous Spatial Sorting in Zonal Recreation Demand Models.” Land Economics 86 (4): 800-816.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
3. 1. Bhat, Chandra R.

   2001. “Quasi-random Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of the Mixed Multinomial Logit Model.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 35 (7): 677-93.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Bhat, Chandra R.

   . 2011. “The Maximum Approximate Composite Marginal Likelihood (MACML) Estimation of Multinomial Probit-Based Unordered Response Choice Models.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 45 (7): 923-39.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Bhat, Chandra R.,
   2. Sebastian Astroza, and
   3. Aarti C. Bhat

   . 2016. “On Allowing a General Form for Unobserved Heterogeneity in the Multiple Discrete-Continuous Probit Model: Formulation and Application to Tourism Travel.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 86: 223-49.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Bujosa, Angel,
   2. Antoni Riera, and
   3. Robert L. Hicks

   . 2010. “Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics 47 (4): 477-93.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Burton, Mike, and
   2. Dan Rigby

   . 2009. “Hurdle and Latent Class Approaches to Serial Non-participation in Choice Models.” Environmental and Resource Economics 42 (2): 211-26.

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Campbell, Danny,
   2. Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel,
   3. Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, and
   4. Jette Bredahl Jacobsen

   . 2014. “Heterogeneity in the WTP for Recreational Access: Distributional Aspects.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57 (8): 1200-1219.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Cesario, Frank J.

   1976. “Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies.” Land Economics 52 (1): 32-41.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. 1. Cooper, Joseph, and
    2. John Loomis

    . 1990. “Pooled Time-Series Cross-Section Travel Cost Models: Testing Whether Recreation Behavior is Stable over Time.” Leisure Sciences 12 (2): 161-71.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
11. 1. Doherty, Edel,
    2. Danny Campbell, and
    3. Stephen Hynes

    . 2013. “Models of Site-Choice for Walks in Rural Ireland: Exploring Cost Heterogeneity.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (2): 446-66.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Greene, William H., and
    2. David A. Hensher

    . 2013. “Revealing Additional Dimensions of Preference Heterogeneity in a Latent Class Mixed Multinomial Logit Model.” Applied Economics 45 (14): 1897-1902.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
13. 1. Herriges, Joseph A.,
    2. Catherine L. Kling, and
    3. Daniel 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 Joseph A. Herriges and Catherine L. Kling, 163-97. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
14. 1. Hicks, Robert L., and
    2. Ivar E. Strand

    . 2000. “The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models.” Land Economics 76 (3): 374-85.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
15. 1. Hilger, James, and
    2. Michael Hanemann

    . 2006. Heterogeneous Preferences for Water Quality: A Finite Mixture Model of Beach Recreation in Southern California. California Sea Grant College Program, Research Completion Report. University of California.
16. 1. Hynes, Stephen, and
    2. William Greene

    . 2013. “A Panel Travel Cost Model Accounting for Endogenous Stratification and Truncation: A Latent Class Approach.” Land Economics 89 (1): 177-92.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
17. 1. Hynes, Stephen, and
    2. William Greene

    . 2016. “Preference Heterogeneity in Contingent Behaviour Travel Cost Models with On-Site Samples: A Random Parameter vs. a Latent Class Approach.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 (2): 348-67.

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Hynes, Stephen,
    2. Nick Hanley, and
    3. Riccardo Scarpa

    . 2008. “Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (4): 1011-27.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
19. 1. Krinsky, Itzhak, and
    2. A. Leslie Robb

    . 1986. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715-19.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
20. 1. Kuriyama, Koichi,
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, and
    3. James R. Hilger

    . 2010. “A Latent Segmentation Approach to a Kuhn-Tucker Model: An Application to Recreation Demand.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 60 (3): 209-20.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. 1. Liu, Weiwei, and
    2. Kevin J. Egan

    . 2019. “A Semiparametric Smooth Coefficient Estimator for Recreation Demand.” Environmental and Resource Economics 74 (3): 1163-87.

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Morey, Edward,
    2. Jennifer Thacher, and
    3. William Breffle

    . 2006. “Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model.” Environmental and Resource Economics 34 (1): 91-115.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Morey, Edward, and
    2. Mara Thiene

    . 2012. “A Parsimonious, Stacked Latent-Class Methodology for Predicting Behavioral Heterogeneity in Terms of Life-Constraint Heterogeneity.” Ecological Economics 74: 130-44.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. 1. Morey, Edward, and
    2. Mara Thiene

    . 2017. “Can Personality Traits Explain Where and with Whom You Recreate? A Latent-Class Site-Choice Model Informed by Estimates from Mixed-Mode LC Cluster Models with Latent-Personality Traits.” Ecological Economics 138: 223-37.

    OpenUrl
25. 1. Parsons, George R.,
    2. Ami K. Kang,
    3. Christopher G. Leggett, and
    4. Kevin J. Boyle

    . 2009. “Valuing Beach Closures on the Padre Island National Seashore.” Marine Resource Economics 24 (3): 213-35.

    OpenUrl
26. 1. Parsons, George R.,
    2. D. Matthew Massey, and
    3. Ted Tomasi

    . 1999. “Familiar and Favorite Sites in a Random Utility Model of Beach Recreation.” Marine Resource Economics 14 (4): 299-315.

    OpenUrl
27. 1. Peters, T.,
    2. W. L. Adamowicz, and
    3. P. C. Boxall

    . 1995. “Influence of Choice Set Considerations in Modeling the Benefits from Improved Water Quality.” Water Resources Research 31 (7): 1781-87.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
28. 1. Phaneuf, Daniel J., and
    2. Joseph A. Herriges

    . 1999. “Choice Set Definition Issues in a Kuhn-Tucker Model of Recreation Demand.” Marine Resource Economics 14 (4): 343-55.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
29. 1. Phaneuf, Daniel J.,
    2. Catherine L. Kling, and
    3. Joseph A. Herriges

    . 2000. “Estimation and Welfare Calculations in a Generalized Corner Solution Model with an Application to Recreation Demand.” Review of Economics and Statistics 82 (1): 83-92.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
30. 1. Provencher, Bill,
    2. Kenneth A. Baerenklau, and
    3. Richard C. Bishop

    . 2002. “A Finite Mixture Logit Model of Recreational Angling with Serially Correlated Random Utility.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 (4): 1066-75.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
31. 1. Scarpa, Riccardo, and
    2. Mara Thiene

    . 2005. “Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the North-Eastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Participation.” Land Economics 81 (3): 426-44.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
32. 1. Scarpa, Riccardo,
    2. Mara Thiene, and
    3. Tiziano Tempesta

    . 2007. “Latent Class Count Models of Total Visitation Demand: Days out Hiking in the Eastern Alps.” Environmental and Resource Economics 38 (4): 447-60.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
33. 1. Train, Kenneth E.

    2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. 1. von Haefen, Roger H., and
    2. Daniel J. Phaneuf

    . 2003. “Estimating Preferences for Outdoor Recreation: A Comparison of Continuous and Count Data Demand System Frameworks.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45 (3): 612-30.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
35. 1. von Haefen, Roger H., and
    2. Daniel J. Phaneuf

    . 2005. “Kuhn-Tucker Demand System Approaches to Non-market Valuation.” In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, edited by Riccardo Scarpa and Anna Alberini, 135-57. New York: Springer.
36. 1. von Haefen, Roger H.,
    2. Daniel J. Phaneuf, and
    3. George R. Parsons

    . 2004. “Estimation and Welfare Analysis with Large Demand Systems.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 22 (2): 194-205.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
37. 1. Wedel, Michel,
    2. Wagner Kamakura,
    3. Neeraj Arora,
    4. Albert Bemmaor,
    5. Jeongwe Chiang,
    6. Terry Elrod,
    7. Rich Johnson,
    8. Peter Lenk,
    9. Scott Neslin, and
    10. Carsten Stig Poulsen

    . 1999. “Discrete and Continuous Representations of Unobserved Heterogeneity in Choice Modeling.” Marketing Letters 10 (3): 219-32.

    OpenUrl