IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2021i1p306-d712992.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining Preference Heterogeneity in Best-Worst Scaling: Case of Preferences for Job Opportunities in Artisanal Small-Scale Gold Mining (ASGM) Communities in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Satoru Komatsu

    (Graduate School of Global Humanities and Social Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8521, Japan)

  • Yayu Isyana D. Pongoliu

    (Faculty of Economics, State University of Gorontalo, Gorontalo 96128, Indonesia)

  • Masayuki Sakakibara

    (Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto 603-8047, Japan
    Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ehime University, Matsuyama 790-8577, Japan)

  • Taro Ohdoko

    (Faculty of Economics, Dokkyo University, Saitama 340-0042, Japan)

Abstract

This research empirically examines the preferences for job-related attributes among rural villagers living close to artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) in Indonesia. Based on hypothetical scenarios in which a private company collaborates with the local government to establish a food processing industry in these villages, a questionnaire survey designed with best–worst scaling (BWS) was administered to households to determine their preferences. Additionally, the heterogeneity among the villagers was examined by applying a latent class logit (LCL) model. The main household survey was conducted in 2019 in Bone Bolango Regency, Gorontalo Province. The estimation results revealed that villagers are separated into four classes, and each class has different and unique preferences. Creating more job opportunities for society is a highly evaluated attribute; however, the preference for skill acquisition differs among groups. The results indicate that accounting for heterogeneous preferences regarding job opportunities is helpful to delink dependency on ASGM and health hazards and improve the livelihoods of rural villagers. The study yields key information to substantially reduce environmental and health hazards in the poverty-plagued ASGM community by facilitating job opportunities in Indonesia.

Suggested Citation

  • Satoru Komatsu & Yayu Isyana D. Pongoliu & Masayuki Sakakibara & Taro Ohdoko, 2021. "Examining Preference Heterogeneity in Best-Worst Scaling: Case of Preferences for Job Opportunities in Artisanal Small-Scale Gold Mining (ASGM) Communities in Indonesia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:p:306-:d:712992
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/306/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/306/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    3. Uggeldahl, Kennet & Jacobsen, Catrine & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2016. "Choice certainty in Discrete Choice Experiments: Will eye tracking provide useful measures?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 35-48.
    4. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    6. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    7. Gavin Hilson & Mark Hirons & Laurent E. Cartier & Michael Bürge, 2011. "Agriculture And Artisanal Gold Mining In Sierra Leone: Alternatives Or Complements?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(8), pages 1080-1099, November.
    8. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    9. Hess, Stephane & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2013. "Linking response quality to survey engagement: A combined random scale and latent variable approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-12.
    10. Yanan Li & Chan Xiong & Zhe Zhu & Qiaowen Lin, 2021. "Family Migration and Social Integration of Migrants: Evidence from Wuhan Metropolitan Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-21, December.
    11. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    12. Nick Hanley & W. Douglass Shaw & Robert E. Wright (ed.), 2003. "The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2712.
    13. Gavin Hilson & Sadia Mohammed Banchirigah, 2009. "Are Alternative Livelihood Projects Alleviating Poverty in Mining Communities? Experiences from Ghana," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 172-196.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2004. "Comparing Individual-Specific Benefit Estimates for Public Goods: Finite Versus Continuous Mixing in Logit Models," Working Papers 2004.132, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    3. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    4. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    5. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    6. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    7. Hidrue, Michael K. & Parsons, George R. & Kempton, Willett & Gardner, Meryl P., 2011. "Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 686-705, September.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    9. Brown, Zachary S. & Dickinson, Katherine L. & Paskewitz, Susan, 2015. "A generalized latent class logit model of discontinuous preferences in repeated discrete choice data: an application to mosquito control in Madison, Wisconsin," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205613, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. David Boto-García & Petr Mariel & José Baños Pino & Antonio Alvarez, 2022. "Tourists’ willingness to pay for holiday trip characteristics: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Tourism Economics, , vol. 28(2), pages 349-370, March.
    11. Hilger, James & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "The Impact of Water Quality on Southern California Beach Recreation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," CUDARE Working Papers 47037, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    12. Jae Eun You & Jong Woo Choi, 2022. "An analysis of food culture and technology acceptance for youth: Using a choice experiment and a latent class model," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(2), pages 510-522, March.
    13. Hilger, James & Hanemann, Michael, 2006. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Water Quality: A Finite Mixture Model of Beach Recreation in Southern California," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0565c0b2, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    14. Catalina M. Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," DEA Working Papers 65, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    15. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    16. Kuriyama, Koichi & Michael Hanemann, W. & Hilger, James R., 2010. "A latent segmentation approach to a Kuhn-Tucker model: An application to recreation demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 209-220, November.
    17. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu, 2023. "Integrating a Pareto-Distributed Scale into the Mixed Logit Model: A Mathematical Concept," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    18. Eric Ruto & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate Preferences for Cattle Traits in Kenya," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, George, "undated". "Front of Pack Food Labels and dietary choice determinants: what works and for whom?," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 261225, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:p:306-:d:712992. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.