Benefit measurements have been performed on tourism activities on the basis of demand theory or random utility theory. Recently, the Kuhn–Tucker model (KTM), which can measure more flexible patterns of preferences, has been used for benefit measurement. The purpose of this study is to measure the benefits of tourism activities in Nara Prefecture by the KTM and examine the features of the model by comparing it with the demand-based approach (DBA) and the random utility model (RUM). The benefit ranges measured by the DBA, RUM and KTM methods are 4,659–42, 874, 236–10, 06 and 289–37, 670 yen, respectively. Finally, the World Heritage Sites have larger benefits than the other sites.
AndersonD.M. (2010), ‘Estimating the economic value of ice climbing in Hyalite Canyon: An application of travel cost count data models that account for excess zeros’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 91, No 4, pp 1012–1020.
2.
BealD.J. (1995), ‘A travel cost analysis of the value of Carnarvon Gorge National Park for recreational use’, Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Vol 63, No 2, pp 292–303.
3.
BockstaelN.E.McConnellK.E.StrandI.E. (1989), ‘Random utility model for sport fishing: Some preliminary results for Florida’, Marine Resource Economics, Vol 6, No 3, pp 245–260.
4.
BowkerJ.M.BergstromJ.C.GillJ. (2007), ‘Estimating the economic value and impacts of recreational trails: A case study of the Virginia Creeper Rail Trail’, Tourism Economics, Vol 13, No 2, pp 241–260.
5.
CoupalR.H.BastianC.T.MayJ.A.TaylorD.T. (2001), ‘Economic benefits of snowmobiling in Wyoming: A travel cost approach with market segmentation’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol 33, No 4, pp 492–510.
6.
EomY.S.LarsonD.M. (2006), ‘Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 52, No 1, pp 501–516.
7.
FeenbergD.MillsE.S. (1980), ‘Empirical studies of instream benefits’, in FeenbergD., ed, Measuring the Benefits of Water Pollution Abatement, Academic Press, New York, pp 105–135.
8.
GreeneG.MossC.B.SpreenT.H. (1997), ‘The demand for recreational fishing in Tampa Bay, Florida: A random utility approach’, Marine Resource Economics, Vol 12, No 4, pp 293–305.
9.
HanemannW.M. (1978), ‘A methodological and empirical study of the recreation benefits from water quality improvement’, PhD dissertation, Department of Economics, Harvard University.
10.
HausmanJ.A. (1981), ‘Exact consumer's surplus and deadweight loss’, American Economic Review, Vol 71, No 4, pp 662–676.
11.
KaoruY. (1995), ‘Measuring marine recreation benefits of water quality improvements by the nested random utility model’, Resource and Energy Economics, Vol 17, No 2, pp 119–136.
12.
LarsonD.M. (1991), ‘Recovering weakly complementary preferences’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 21, No 2, pp 97–108.
13.
LaymanR.C. (1996), ‘Economic valuation of the Chinook salmon sport fishery of the Gulkana River, Alaska, under current and alternate management plans’, Land Economics, Vol 72, No 1, pp 113–128.
14.
LongP.T.PerdueR.R. (1990), ‘The economic impact of rural festivals and special events: Assessing the spatial distribution of expenditures’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 28, pp 10–14.
15.
McConnellK.E.StrandI.E.Blake-HedgesL. (1995), ‘Random utility models of recreational fishing: Catching fish using a Poisson process’, Marine Resource Economics, Vol 10, No 3, pp 247–261.
16.
MoreyE.R.ShawW.D.RoweR.D. (1991), ‘A discrete choice model of recreational participation, site choice, and activity valuation when complete trip data are not available’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 20, No 2, pp 181–201.
NeedelmanM.S.KealyM.J. (1995), ‘Recreational swimming benefits of New Hampshire lake water quality policies: An application of a repeated discrete choice model’, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol 24, No 1, pp 78–87.
19.
ParsonsG.R.KealyM.J. (1995), ‘A demand theory for number of trips in a random utility model of recreation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 29, No 3, pp 357–367.
20.
PhaneufD.J.HerrigesJ.A. (1999), ‘Choice set definition issues in a Kuhn–Tucker model of recreation demand’, Marine Resource Economics, Vol 14, No 4, pp 343–355.
21.
PhaneufD.J.SiderelisC. (2003), ‘An application of the Kuhn–Tucker model to the demand for water trail trips in North Carolina’, Marine Resource Economics, Vol 18, No 1, pp 1–14.
22.
RobertoM.E.JoeA.T. (2009), ‘Multi-destination and multi-purpose trip effects in the analysis of the demand for trips to a remote recreational site’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 43, No 6, pp 1146–1161.
23.
SmallK.A.RosenH.S. (1981), ‘Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models’, Econometrica, Vol 49, No 1, pp 105–130.
24.
von HaefenR.H.PhaneufD.J. (2003), ‘Estimating preferences for outdoor recreation: A comparison of continuous and count data demand system frameworks’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 45, No 3, pp 612–630.
25.
von HaefenR.H.PhaneufD.J.ParsonsG.R. (2004), ‘Estimation and welfare analysis with large demand systems’, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Vol 22, No 2, pp 194–205.
26.
WalesT.J.WoodlandA.D. (1983), ‘Estimation of consumer demand systems with binding non-negativity constraints’, Journal of Econometrics, Vol 21, No 3, pp 263–285.
27.
ZiemerR.F.MusserW.N.HillR.C. (1980), ‘Recreation demand equations: Functional form and consumer surplus’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 62, pp 136–141.
