Upneja et al. (2001) stated correctly that benefit estimates beyond those generated by economic impact analyses are appropriate kinds of information for policymakers and resource managers. The authors’ concern is that Upneja et al.’s article could potentially encourage other travel professionals to estimate travel cost models that provide inaccurate or flawed economic benefit estimates. Problems include using price as the only variable in the demand equation, out-of-pocket travel expenses as a proxy for price, and linear regression instead of a count data process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Coupal, R. H., C. T. Bastian, J. A. May, and D. T. Taylor (2002). “Economic Benefits of Snowmobiling in Wyoming: A Travel Cost Approach with Market Segmentation.”Journal of Leisure Research, 33 (4):492-510.
2.
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.
3.
Loomis, J. B., and R. G. Walsh (1997). Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs. 2nd ed.State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
4.
Greene, W. H. (1998). LIMDEP, Version 7.0. New York: Econometric Software.
5.
Gujarati, D. M. (1995). Basic Econometrics. 3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
Upneja, A., E. L. Shafer, W. Seo, and J. Yoon (2001). “Economic Benefits of Sport Fishing and Angler Wildlife Watching in Pennsylvania.”Journal of Travel Research, 40 (1):68-78.
7.
Ward, F. A., and D. Beal (2000). Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models: A Manual. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
