{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013172338090010977, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.422535211267606, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of the Effect of Multiple Destination Trips on Recreation Benefits as Estimated by Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Methods

This paper investigates the empirical magnitude of multiple destination/purpose trip bias in the Travel Cost Method (TCM), and the performance of an empirical solution for that method. For the study area, we find that ignoring the multiple destination/purpose trip distinction does result in a substantial difference in per trip values for the TCM. However, based on a comparison with Contingent Valuation Method derived values for these two trip types, an empirical correction to the Travel Cost Method appears to adequately differentiate the values of single and multiple destination trips. If the multiple destination trip distinction is ignored in estimation it substantially underestimates recreation benefits derived from the Travel Cost Method in our case study.