Travel Cost Method Considering Trip-day Counts as Integers

Kono, Tatsuhito and Yoshida, Jun (2020): Travel Cost Method Considering Trip-day Counts as Integers.

Abstract

The Travel Cost Method (TCM) is a typical benefit measurement method, using the fact that people substitute the benefit of visiting some sites for their travel cost. However, in the case of tourist sites, travelers do not choose the number of days spent in a tourist city as continuous numbers but integer numbers. We investigate how a bias could arise from ignoring integer numbers of nights in TCM. We derive the formula of what factors constitute the bias. Next, we numerically show that when measuring benefits of improving quality at sites, the maximum bias could be around 20%.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Project Evaluation, Travel cost method, Integer property
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q26 - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q56 - Environment and Development ; Environment and Trade ; Sustainability ; Environmental Accounts and Accounting ; Environmental Equity ; Population Growth

References

Berman, M. D., & Kim, H. J. (1999). Endogenous on-site time in the recreation demand model. Land Economics, 603-619.

English, D.B.K. and Bowker, J.M. (1996). Sensitivity of whitewater rafting consumers surplus to pecuniary travel cost specifications, Journal of Environmental Management, 47(1), 79–91.

Hotelling, H. (1947). “Letter to the National Park Service”, Reprinted in An Economic Study of the Monetary Evaluation of Recreation in National Parks, US Department of the Interior.

Dobbs, I.M. (1993). Individual travel cost method: estimation and benefit assessment with a discrete and possibly grouped dependent variable. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(1), 84–94.

Kealy, M.J. and Bishop, R.C.. (1986). Theoretical and empirical specifications issues in travel cost demand studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(3), 660–667.

Research on Kyoto Sightseeing (named “Kanko Sogo Chousa”), Kyoto city official report, 2013, (URL: http://kanko.city.kyoto.lg.jp/chosa/image/kanko_chosa25.pdf)

Landry, C. E., and McConnell, K. E.. (2007). Hedonic Onsight Cost Model of Recreation Demand. Land Economics, 83(2), 253–267.

Larson, D. M. (1993). Joint recreation choices and implied values of time. Land Economics, 270-286.

Loomis, J., Yorizane, S., and Larson, D. (2000). Testing significance of multi-destination and multi-purpose trip effects in a travel cost method demand model for whale watching trips. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 29(2), 183–191.

McConnell, K.E. (1992). Onsite Time in the Demand for Recreation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(4), 918–25.

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; Civil Aviation Bureau. (2006). Manual for cost-benefit analysis for project in airports, pp. 24 http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000168996.pdf (Last access on 10th, February, 2017).

Nahman, A., and Rigby, D. (2008). Valuing blue flag status and estuarine water quality in margate, South Africa1. South African journal of economics, 76(4), 721–737.

Phaneuf, D.J. and Smith, V.K. (2005). Recreation Demand Models. Maler, K.G., Vincent, J.R. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics, Volume 2 1105–1618, North-Holland.

Randall, A. (1994). A difficulty with the travel cost method. Land Economics, 70(1), 88–96.

Shrestha, R. K., Seidl, A. F., and Moraes, A. S. (2002). Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models. Ecological economics, 42(1), 289–299.

Yeh, C. Y., Haab, T. C., and Sohngen, B. L. (2006). Modeling multiple-objective recreation trips with choices over trip duration and alternative sites. Environmental and resource economics, 34(2), 189–209.