2012
DOI: 10.1007/s11116-012-9397-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysis of long-distance vacation travel demand in the United States: a multiple discrete–continuous choice framework

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The chi-square value of unrestricted model was 234. 4 and that of restricted model was 2684.4. The difference value of chi-square was 2450, and the probability value of chi-square difference quantity significance test was p = 0.000, reaching the significant level (p < 0.05).…”
Section: Verification Of Hypotheses: Structural Model Of Passengers' mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The chi-square value of unrestricted model was 234. 4 and that of restricted model was 2684.4. The difference value of chi-square was 2450, and the probability value of chi-square difference quantity significance test was p = 0.000, reaching the significant level (p < 0.05).…”
Section: Verification Of Hypotheses: Structural Model Of Passengers' mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The model we develop offers the possibility to study several important dimensions of outdoor recreationamount of time spent, travel mode and destination choicein a consistent framework in which actors maximize utility. The MDCEV framework has been used to investigate the somewhat related topic of time spent on vacation by Van Nostrand et al (2013) and LaMondia et al (2008), but these studies do not consider travel mode and destination choice simultaneously.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From Equation 1, the utility function is defined as an additively separable function of subutilities derived from consuming goods, u gk (x qk ); subutilities derived from allocating time to nonwork activities, ũ gn (t qn ); and a subutility from the time allocated to work, ũ gw (t qw ). The functional form of the subutilities follows the linear expenditure system utility form originally proposed by Bhat (7), which was extended by Van Nostrand et al (13) to accommodate minimum required consumption and time allocation: where ψ qgk , ψ qgn , and ψ qgw = baseline marginal utility parameters associated with good k, nonwork activity type n, and work activity, respectively; x 0 qk = minimum required consumption of good k (if it is consumed); t 0 qn = minimum amount of time required to conduct activity n (if that activity is conducted); and t 0 qw = minimum required duration for work. As with many previous studies, exogenously given minimum levels of goods consumption and time allocation were considered in the current study (4,14).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%