Publication

Over the last decade, several authors have questioned the validity of the hedonic travel cost model, arguing instead that the random utility model is a superior method for valuing recreational site attributes. This paper demonstrates that the two methods emanate from a similar utility theoretic framework; yet in practice these methods differ in the assumptions made in their application. Constraining the underlying utility functions to be consistent, both models are applied to the valuation of recreational site attributes in the Southeastern United States. The way in which each method estimates preferences for site attributes is shown to depend critically on the method and the functional form of the underlying utility function.