Tourism in the Alps used to rely on a network of facilities maintained in part by the military Alpine Corps. Hiking has been growing in popularity, while the national draft is no longer compulsory. This situation calls for a renewed approach to management of the maintenance of alpine facilities. The authors explore the use of destination choice models which allow for various substitution hypotheses and highlight how single mountain sites can be substitutes for others, although located in a different geographical area. The results supply helpful information for local policy decision makers as they provide insights about the redistribution of visits following the implementation of different policy scenarios. The authors investigate such redistributions following the variation of availability to hikers in terms of alpine shelters, length of trails, site access and the application of access fees. They also estimate changes in welfare for selected variations of alpine facilities and availability of destinations. The findings highlight the sensitivity of results to the use of different specifications of demand models to guide local policy strategies.
BockstaelN.E.HanemannW.M.StrandI.E. (1986), Measuring the Benefits of Water Quality Improvement Using Recreation Demand Models, Volume 2, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington, DC, http://www.epa.gov/docs/oppe/eaed/eedhmpg.htm.
2.
Borsch-SupanA. (1990), ‘On the compatibility of nested logit models with utility maximization’, Journal of Econometrics, Vol 43, No 3, pp 373–388.
3.
Chavez-ComparanJ.C.FischerD.W. (2001), ‘Economic valuation of the benefits of recreational fisheries in Manzanillo, Colima, Mexico’, Tourism Economics, Vol 7, No 4, pp 331–345.
4.
Da PozzoM.TempestaT.ThieneM. (2003), Turismo ed attività ricreative a Cortina d'Ampezzo, Forum, Udine.
5.
GrijalvaT.C.BerrensR.P.BoharaA.K.JakusP.M.ShawW.D. (2002), ‘Valuing the loss of rock climbing access in wilderness areas: A national-level, random-utility model’, Land Economics, Vol 78, No 1, pp 103–120.
6.
HanleyN.KoopG.WrightR.Álvarez-FarizoB.NevinC. (2001), ‘Go climb a mountain: An application of recreation demand models to rock climbing in Scotland’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 52, pp 36–52.
7.
HanleyN.Alvarez-FarizoB.ShawD.W. (2002), ‘Rationing an open-access resource: Mountaineering in Scotland’, Land Use Policy, Vol 119, pp 167–176.
8.
HausmanJ.A.LeonardG.K.McFaddenD. (1995), ‘A utility consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model: Assessing recreational use and losses due to natural resource damage’, Journal of Public Economics, Vol 56, pp 1–30.
9.
HerathG.KennedyJ. (2004), ‘Estimating the economic value of Mount Buffalo National Park with the travel cost and contingent valuation models’, Tourism Economics, Vol 10, No 1, pp 63–78.
10.
HerrigesJ.A.KlingC.L. (1995), ‘An empirical investigation of the consistency of nested logit models with utility maximization’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 77, No 2, pp 875–884.
11.
HerrigesJ.A.PhaneufD. (2002), ‘Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated nested logit models of recreation demand’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 84, No 4, pp 1076–1090.
12.
JakusP.M.ShawW.D. (1996), ‘Travel cost models of the demand for rock climbing’, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol 25, No 2, pp 133–142.
13.
JakusP.M.ShawW.D. (2003), ‘Perceived hazard and product choice: An application to recreational site choice’, The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol 26, No 1, pp 77–92.
14.
KaoruY.SmithV.K.LiuJ.L. (1995), ‘Using random utility models to estimate the recreational value of estuarine resources’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 77, No 1, pp 141–151.
15.
KarlstromA.MoreyE.R. (2004), ‘Calculating the exact compensating variation in logit and nested-logit models with income effects: Theory, intuition, implementation and application, http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/morey/discuss.html.
16.
KlingC.L.ThompsonC.J. (1996), ‘The implication of model specification for welfare estimation in nested logit models’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 78, No 2, pp 103–114.
17.
LeeB. (1999), ‘Calling pattern and usage of residential toll service under self-selecting tariffs’, Journal of Regulatory Economics, Vol 16, pp 45–82.
18.
McConnellK.E. (1992), ‘Model building and judgement: Implications for benefit transfers with travel cost models’, Water Resource Research, Vol 28, No 3, pp 695–700.
19.
McConnellK.E. (1995), ‘Consumer surplus for discrete choice models’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 29, No 11, pp 263–270.
20.
McFaddenD. (1974), ‘Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour’, in ZarembkaP., ed, Frontiers in Econometrics IV, Academic Press, London/New York.
21.
McFaddenD. (1978), ‘Quantitative methods for analysing travel behaviour of individuals: Some recent developments’, in HensherD.StopherP.R., eds, Behavioural Travel Demand, Croom Helm, London, pp 279–318.
22.
MarshackJ. (1960), ‘Binary choice constraints on random utility indicators’, in ArrowK., ed, Stanford Symposium on Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
23.
MoreyE.R.RoweR.D.WatsonM. (1993), ‘A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic salmon fishing’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 75, August, pp 578–592.
24.
ParsonsG.R.KealyM.J. (1992), ‘Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation’, Land Economics, Vol 68, No 1, pp 93–106.
25.
RomanoD.ScarpaR.SpalatoF.ViganoL. (2000), ‘Modeling determinants of participation, number of trips and site choice for outdoor recreation in protected areas’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 51, No 2, pp 224–238.
26.
ScarpaR.ThieneM. (2005), ‘Destination choice models for rock-climbing in the north-eastern Alps: A latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences’, Land Economics, Vol 85, No 3, pp 426–444.
27.
ScarpaR.TempestaT.ThieneM. (2003), ‘Non-participation, demand intensity and substitution effects in an integrable demand system: The case of day trips to the north-eastern Alps’, in HanleyN.ShawD.WrightR., eds, The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 98–122.
28.
SimmaA.SchlichR.AxhausenK.W. (2001), ‘Destination choice of leisure trips: The case of Switzerland’, Arbeitsberichte Verkehrs- and Raumplanning, 99, Institut für Verkerhrsplanung und Transporttechnick, Strassen und Eisenbahnbau, ETH Zürich, Zürich.
29.
StoecklN. (2003), ‘A “quick and dirty” travel cost model’, Tourism Economics, Vol 9, No 3, pp 325–335.
30.
TempestaT.ThieneM. (2004), ‘La Montagna Veneta e la domanda ricreativa della popolazione residente’, in DefrancescoE., ed, Proceedings of XL Convegno SIDEA ‘La Liberalizzazione degli scambi dei prodotti agricoli tra conflitti ed accordi: Il ruolo dell'Italia’, University of Padua, 18–20 September, Franco Angeli, Milan, pp 411–425.
31.
ThurstoneL. (1927), ‘A law of comparative judgement’, Psychological Review, Vol 34, pp 273–286.
32.
TrainK. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, New York.
33.
TrainK.McFaddenK.D.GoettA. (1987), ‘Consumer attitude and voluntary rate schedule for public utilities’, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol 69, pp 383–391.
