Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:52:01.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conjoint Analysis of Deer Hunting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

John Mackenzie
John Mackenzie*
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware
Get access

Abstract

This paper develops a logit-based conjoint analysis of willingness to pay for individual attributes of deer-hunting trips. Since deer-hunting success is uncertain, willingness to pay for enhanced likelihood of bagging a deer, rather than for certain success, is evaluated. Implicit costs of recreational travel time are also evaluated from hypothetical trade-offs between travel time and trip expenditures. The valuation of travel time derived here appears to reflect more the opportunity cost of foregone hunting than the opportunity cost of foregone work. This implies that travel-cost analyses of recreational demand, which impute costs of recreational travel solely from wage data, can yield biased valuations of recreational amenities.

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , October 1990 , pp. 109 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article was published as Miscellaneous Paper no. 1341 of the Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. The author thanks Benaifer Eduljee for assisting with the data collection and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on prior drafts.

References

Addelman, Sidney. “Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments.” Technometrics 4, no. 1 (1962):21–46.Google Scholar
Bishop, Richard C., and Heberlein, Thomas A. “Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, no. 5 (1979):926–30.Google Scholar
Bishop, Richard C., Heberlein, Thomas A., and Kealy, Mary Jo. “Contingent Valuation of Environment Assets: Comparison with a Simulated Market.” Natural Resources Journal 23 (1983):619–33.Google Scholar
Bockstael, Nancy E., and McConnell, Kenneth E. “Theory and Estimation of the Household Production Function for Wildlife Recreation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8 (1981):199–214.Google Scholar
Bockstael, Nancy E., Strand, Ivar E., and Hanemann, Michael. “Time and the Recreational Demand Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69, no. 2 (1987):293–302.Google Scholar
Boyle, Kevin J., and Bishop, Richard C. “Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, no. 1 (1988):20–28.Google Scholar
Brown, Gardner. “Valuing Oregon Salmon by Using a Multimarket, Hedonic Travel Cost Method.” In Sport Fishing: A Comparison of Three Indirect Methods for Estimating Benefits, ed. Hueth, D., Strong, E. J., and Fight, R. J. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-RP-395. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 1988.Google Scholar
Brown, Gardner, and Mendelsohn, Robert. “The Hedonic Travel Cost Method.” Review of Economics and Statistics 66, no. 3 (1984):427–33.Google Scholar
Cameron, Trudy Ann. “A New Paradigm for Valuing Nonmarket Goods Using Referendum Data.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15 (1988):355–79.Google Scholar
Cameron, Trudy Ann, and James, Michelle D. “Efficient Estimation Methods for ‘Closed-Ended’ Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Review of Economics and Statistics 69, no. 2 (1987):269–76.Google Scholar
Cesario, Frank J. “Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies.” Land Economics 52 (1976):32–41.Google Scholar
Eduljee, Benaifer, and Mackenzie, John. “The 1989 Delaware Hunter Survey.” University of Delaware, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin. Newark, DE. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Freeman, Myrick A. “The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice.” Resources for the Future. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Gineo, Wayne. “A Conjoint/Logit Analysis of Nursery Stock Purchases.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(April 1990):49–58.Google Scholar
Goodman, Allen C. “Identifying Willingness-To-Pay for Heterogeneous Goods with Factorial Survey Methods.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 16 (1989):58–79.Google Scholar
Green, Paul E. “On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives.” Journal of Consumer Research 10 (1974):61–68.Google Scholar
Green, Paul E. “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review.” Journal of Marketing Research 21 (1984):155–69.Google Scholar
Green, Paul E., Carroll, J. Douglas, and Goldberg, Stephen M. “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization Via Conjoint Analysis.” Journal of Marketing 45 (1981):17–37.Google Scholar
Green, Paul E., and Rao, Vithala R. “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data.” Journal of Marketing Research 8 (1971):355–63.Google Scholar
Green, Paul E., and Srinivasan, V. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook.” Journal of Consumer Research 5 (1978):103–23.Google Scholar
Gum, Russell L., and Martin, William E. “Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and Value of Rural Outdoor Recreating.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, no. 4 (1975):558–66.Google Scholar
Hammack, Judd, and Brown, M.G. Jr., Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis. Resources for the Future. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984):332–41.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael. “Some Issues in Continuous- and Discrete-Response Contingent Valuation.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 16, no. 1 (1985):5–13.Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. Jr., “The LOGIST Procedure.” In SUGI Manual. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1980.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, and Tukey, John W. “Simultâneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1 (1964):1–27.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, John. “Toward the Economic Valuation of Hunting and Public Wildlife Management.” University of Delaware, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 473. Newark, DE, 1988.Google Scholar
Madansky, Albert. “On Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models.” Journal of Business 53, no. 3.2 (1980):S37–S44.Google Scholar
Maler, Karl-Goran. Environmental Economics. Resources for the Future. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
McConnell, Kenneth E. “Values of Marine Recreational Fishing—Measurement and Import of Measurement.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, no. 5 (1979):922–25.Google Scholar
McConnell, Kenneth E. “Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18 (1990):19–34.Google Scholar
McConnell, Kenneth E., and Strand, Ivar E. “Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63, no. 1 (1981):153–56.Google Scholar
McFadden, Daniel. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. Zarembka, P., 105–42. New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Ross, A.D., Stevens, T.H., and Allen, P.G. “Measurement of Recreation Benefits for Urban-oriented Camping.” University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 667. Amherst, MA, 1981.Google Scholar
Schulze, William D., d'Arge, Ralph C., and Brookshire, David S. “Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments.” Land Economics 57, no. 2 (1981):151–72.Google Scholar
Wilman, Elizabeth A. “The Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7 (1980):272–86.Google Scholar