Values of Travel Time for Recreational Trips under Different Behavioural Rules

  1. Marrero, Ángel Simón 1
  2. Román, Concepción 23
  3. González, Rosa Marina 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España


  2. 2 Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

    Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

    Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, España


  3. 3 North-West University

    North-West University

    Potchefstroom, Sudáfrica



Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 13

Issue: 12

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3390/SU13126831 GOOGLE SCHOLAR
Author's full text: lock_openOpen access editor


Cited by

  • Scopus Cited by: 0 (27-11-2023)
  • Web of Science Cited by: 0 (18-10-2023)
  • Dimensions Cited by: 0 (12-04-2023)


(Data updated as of 12-04-2023)
  • Total citations: 0
  • Recent citations: 0
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR): 0.0


In this study, discrete choice models that combine different behavioural rules are estimatedto study the visitors’ preferences in relation to their travel mode choices to access a national park.Using a revealed preference survey conducted on visitors of Teide National Park (Tenerife, Spain),we present a hybrid model specification—with random parameters—in which we assume thatsome attributes are evaluated by the individuals under conventional random utility maximization(RUM) rules, whereas others are evaluated under random regret minimization (RRM) rules. We thencompare the results obtained using exclusively a conventional RUM approach to those obtained usingboth RUM and RRM approaches, derive monetary valuations of the different components of traveltime and calculate direct elasticity measures. Our results provide useful instruments to evaluatepolicies that promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport in natural sites. Such policiesshould be considered as priorities in many national parks, where negative transport externalitiessuch as traffic congestion, pollution, noise and accidents are causing problems that jeopardize notonly the sustainability of the sites, but also the quality of the visit.

Bibliographic References

  • Holding, D.M.; Kreutner, M. Achieving a balance between “carrots” and “sticks” for traffic in National Parks: The Bayerischer Wald project. Transp. Policy 1998, 5, 175–183. [CrossRef]
  • Orsi, F.; Geneletti, D. Assessing the effects of access policies on travel mode choices in an Alpine tourist destination. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 39, 21–35. [CrossRef]
  • Youngs, Y.L.; White, D.D.; Wodrich, J.A. Transportation systems as cultural landscapes in national parks: The case of Yosemite. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2008, 21, 797–811. [CrossRef]
  • Meldrum, B.; DeGroot, H. Integrating transportation and recreation in Yosemite National Park. In The George Wright Forum; George Wright Society: Hancock, MI, USA, 2012; Volume 29, pp. 302–307.
  • White, D.D.; Tschuor, S.; Byrne, B. Assessing and modeling visitors’ evaluations of park road conditions in Yosemite National Park. In The George Wright Forum; George Wright Society: Hancock, MI, USA, 2012; Volume 29, pp. 308–321.
  • Reigner, N.; Lawson, S.; Meldrum, B.; Pettebone, D.; Newman, P.; Gibson, A.; Kiser, B. Adaptive management of visitor use on Half Dome, an example of effectiveness. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2012, 30, 64–78.
  • Phillips, L.; Mace, R.; Meier, T. Assessing impacts of traffic on large mammals in Denali National Park and Preserve. Park Sci. 2010, 27, 42–47.
  • Manning, R.E.; Hallo, J.C. The Denali park road experience: Indicators and standards of quality. Park Sci. 2010, 27, 33–41.
  • Morris, T.; Hourdos, J.; Donath, M.; Phillips, L. Modeling traffic patterns in Denali National Park and Preserve to evaluate effects on visitor experience and wildlife. Park Sci. 2010, 27, 48–57.
  • D’Antonio, A.; Monz, C.; Newman, P.; Lawson, S.; Taff, D. Enhancing the utility of visitor impact assessment in parks and protected areas: A combined social–ecological approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 124, 72–81. [CrossRef]
  • Lawson, S.; Chamberlin, R.; Choi, J.; Swanson, B.; Kiser, B.; Newman, P.; Monz, C.; Pettebone, D.; Gamble, L. Modeling the effects of shuttle service on transportation system performance and quality of visitor experience in Rocky Mountain National Park. Transp. Res. Rec. 2011, 2244, 97–106. [CrossRef]
  • Park, L.; Lawson, S.; Kaliski, K.; Newman, P.; Gibson, A. Modeling and mapping hikers’ exposure to transportation noise in Rocky Mountain National Park. Park Sci. 2010, 26, 59–64.
  • Pettebone, D.; Newman, P.; Lawson, S.R.; Hunt, L.; Monz, C.; Zwiefka, J. Estimating visitors’ travel mode choices along the bear lake road in Rocky Mountain National Park. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1210–1221. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 6831 16 of 16
  • Roof, C.J.; Kim, B.; Fleming, G.G.; Burstein, J.; Lee, C.S. Noise and Air Quality Implications of Alternative Transportation Systems: Zion and Acadia National Park Case Studies; US Department of Transportation: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.
  • Pettengill, P.R.; Manning, R.E.; Anderson, L.E.; Valliere, W.; Reigner, N. Measuring and managing the quality of transportation at Acadia National Park. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2012, 30, 68–84.
  • Hallo, J.C.; Manning, R.E. Analysis of the social carrying capacity of a national park scenic road. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2010, 4, 75–94. [CrossRef]
  • Mace, B.L.; Marquit, J.D.; Bates, S.C. Visitor assessment of the mandatory alternative transportation system at Zion National Park. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 1271–1285. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Cantillo, V.; Ortúzar, J. A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2005, 39, 641–657. [CrossRef]
  • Wang, S.; Chorus, C.; Shaheen, S.A.; Walker, J.L. A Revealed Preference Methodology to Evaluate Regret Minimization with Challenging Choice Sets: A Wildfire Evacuation Case Study. Travel Behav. Soc. 2020, 20, 331–347. [CrossRef]
  • Chorus, C.G.; Arentze, T.A.; Timmermans, H.J.P. A random regret-minimization model of travel choice. Transp. Res. Part B 2008, 42, 1–18. [CrossRef]
  • Chorus, C. A new model of random regret minimization. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2010, 10, 181–196.
  • An, S.; Wang, Z.; Cui, J. Integrating Regret Psychology to Travel Mode Choice for a Transit-Oriented Evacuation Strategy. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8116–8131. [CrossRef]
  • Hagerty, D.; Moeltner, K. Specification of driving costs in models of recreation demand. Land Econ. 2005, 81, 127–143. [CrossRef]
  • Gürlük, S.; Rehber, E. A travel cost study to estimate recreational value for a bird refuge at Lake Manyas, Turkey. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 1350–1360. [CrossRef]
  • Cesario, F.J. Value of time in recreation benefit studies. Land Econ. 1976, 52, 32–41. [CrossRef]
  • Becker, G.S. A Theory of the Allocation of Time. Econ. J. 1965, 75, 493–517. [CrossRef]
  • Palmquist, R.B.; Phaneuf, D.J.; Smith, V.K. Short run constraints and the increasing marginal value of time in recreation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 46, 19–41. [CrossRef]
  • DeSerpa, A.C. A theory of the economics of time. Econ. J. 1971, 81, 828–846. [CrossRef]
  • McFadden, D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data: With Econometric Applications; Manski, C., McFadden, D., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1981.
  • Chorus, C. Random regret minimization: An overview of model properties and empirical evidence. Transp. Rev. 2012, 32, 75–92. [CrossRef]
  • Dekker, T. Indifference based value of time measures for Random Regret Minimisation models. J. Choice Model. 2014, 12, 10–20. [CrossRef]
  • Chorus, C.G. Random Regret-Based Discrete Choice Modelling: A Tutorial; Briefs in Business Book Series; Springer: Berling, Germany, 2012.
  • Thurstone, L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1927, 34, 273–286. [CrossRef]
  • McFadden, D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics; Zarembka, P., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; pp. 105–142.
  • Louviere, J.J.; Flynn, T.N.; Carson, R.T. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J. Choice Model. 2010, 3, 57–72. [CrossRef]
  • Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
  • Zeelenberg, M.; Pieters, R. A theory of regret regulation 1.0. J. Consum. Psychol. 2007, 17, 3–18. [CrossRef]
  • Chorus, C.G.; Rose, J.M.; Hensher, D.A. Regret minimization or utility maximization: It depends on the attribute. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2013, 40, 154–169. [CrossRef]
  • Hensher, D.A.; Greene, W.H.; Chorus, C.G. Random regret minimization or random utility maximization: An exploratory analysis in the context of automobile fuel choice. J. Adv. Transp. 2013, 47, 667–678. [CrossRef]
  • Gonzalez, R.M. The value of time: A theoretical review. Transp. Rev. 1997, 17, 245–266. [CrossRef]
  • Small, K.A.; Rosen, H.S. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econom. J. Econo-Metr. Soc. 1981, 49, 105–130. [CrossRef]
  • Greene, W.H. Nlogit Version 6.0 Reference Guide; Econometric Software, Inc.: Plainview, NY, USA, 2016.
  • Ben-Akiva, M.; Lerman, S. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985.
  • Ortúzar, J.d.D.; Willumsen, L.G. Modelling Transport, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
  • Ben-Akiva, M.; Swait, J. The Akaike likelihood ratio index. Transp. Sci. 1986, 20, 133–136. [CrossRef]
  • González, R.M.; Román, C.; de Ortúzar, J.D. Preferences for sustainable mobility in natural areas: The case of Teide National Park. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 76, 42–51. [CrossRef]
  • González, R.M.; Román, C.; Marrero, A.S. Visitors’ Attitudes towards Bicycle Use in the Teide National Park. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3283. [CrossRef]