A Dual Approach to Modeling Corner Solutions in Recreation Demand

作者: Daniel J. Phaneuf

DOI: 10.1006/JEEM.1998.1053

关键词:

摘要: Abstract The dual approach of Lee and Pitt to estimating demand systems for which individuals often choose not consume one or more the available goods provides a utility-consistent framework preferences over visits recreation sites. Because complexity model, however, this has been applied in literature. This paper first application model develops methodology conducting welfare analysis, relying on Monte Carlo integration derive estimates compensating variation. methods are fishing Wisconsin Great Lakes region.

参考文章(34)
Daniel James Phaneuf, Generalized corner solution models in recreation demand ISU General Staff Papers. ,(1997) , 10.31274/RTD-180813-13301
T. C. Srinivasan, Corner solution approaches to modeling choice U.M.I.. ,(1989)
Daniel McFadden, Computing Willingness-to-Pay in Random Utility Models Research Papers in Economics. ,(1996)
John Geweke, Monte Carlo simulation and numerical integration Handbook of Computational Economics. ,vol. 13, pp. 731- 800 ,(1994)
Dale Jorgenson, L.J. Lau, L. R. Christensen, Transcendental Logarithmic Utility Functions The American Economic Review. ,vol. 65, pp. 367- 383 ,(1975)
David Edgerton, On the Estimation of Separable Demand Models Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. ,vol. 18, pp. 141- 146 ,(1993)
T. C. Srinivasan, Russell S. Winer, Using Neoclassical Consumer-Choice Theory to Produce a Market Map From Purchase Data Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. ,vol. 12, pp. 1- 9 ,(1994) , 10.1080/07350015.1994.10509986
Jeffrey Englin, David Lambert, W.Douglass Shaw, A Structural Equations Approach to Modeling Consumptive Recreation Demand Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. ,vol. 33, pp. 33- 43 ,(1997) , 10.1006/JEEM.1996.0976
Jerry A. Hausman, Gregory K. Leonard, Daniel McFadden, A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage Journal of Public Economics. ,vol. 56, pp. 1- 30 ,(1995) , 10.1016/0047-2727(93)01415-7