IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare09/47943.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biased estimates in discrete choice models: the appropriate inclusion of psychometric data into the valuation of recycled wastewater

Author

Listed:
  • Gibson, Fiona L.
  • Burton, Michael P.

Abstract

The introduction of measurement bias in parameter estimates into non-linear discrete choice models, as a result of using factor analysis, was identified by Train et al. (1987). They found that the inclusion of factor scores, used to represent relationships amongst like variables, into a subsequent discrete choice models introduced measurement bias as the measurement error associated with each factor score is excluded. This is an issue for non-market valuation given the increase in popularity of including psychometric data, such as primitive beliefs, attitudes and motivations, in willingness to pay estimates. This study explores the relationship between willingness to pay and primitive beliefs through a case study eliciting Perth community values for drinking recycled wastewater. The standard discrete decision model, with sequential inclusion of factor scores, is compared to an equivalent discrete decision model, which corrects for the measurement bias by simultaneously estimating the underlying latent variables using a measurement model. Previous research has focused on the issue of biased parameters. Here we also consider the implications for willingness to pay estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Gibson, Fiona L. & Burton, Michael P., 2009. "Biased estimates in discrete choice models: the appropriate inclusion of psychometric data into the valuation of recycled wastewater," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47943, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:47943
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.47943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/47943/files/change45972.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.47943?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. V. Kerry Smith, 1996. "Can Contingent Valuation Distinguish Economic Values for Different Public Goods?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 139-151.
    2. McCallum, B T, 1972. "Relative Asymptotic Bias from Errors of Omission and Measurement," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(4), pages 757-758, July.
    3. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    4. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal & Andrew Pickles, 2003. "Maximum likelihood estimation of generalized linear models with covariate measurement error," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(4), pages 386-411, December.
    5. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    6. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    7. Train, Kenneth E & McFadden, Daniel L & Goett, Andrew A, 1987. "Consumer Attitudes and Voluntary Rate Schedules for Public Utilities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(3), pages 383-391, August.
    8. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal, 2012. "Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 3rd Edition," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, edition 3, number mimus2, March.
    9. Wang, Liqun, 2002. "A simple adjustment for measurement errors in some limited dependent variable models," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 427-433, July.
    10. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal & Andrew Pickles, 2004. "Generalized multilevel structural equation modeling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 167-190, June.
    11. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ricardo Daziano & Denis Bolduc, 2013. "Covariance, identification, and finite-sample performance of the MSL and Bayes estimators of a logit model with latent attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 647-670, May.
    2. Madjid Bouzit & Sukanya Das & Lise Cary, 2018. "Valuing Treated Wastewater and Reuse: Preliminary Implications From a Meta-Analysis," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(02), pages 1-26, April.
    3. Xuemei Fu & Zhicai Juan, 2017. "Estimation of multinomial probit-kernel integrated choice and latent variable model: comparison on one sequential and two simultaneous approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 91-116, January.

    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. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    2. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    3. Michela Faccioli & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega, 2018. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as simultaneous determinants of preferences for environmental goods," Working Papers 2018-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Anders Skrondal & Jouni Kuha, 2012. "Improved Regression Calibration," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 649-669, October.
    5. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    7. Sun-Joo Cho & Paul Boeck & Susan Embretson & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, 2014. "Additive Multilevel Item Structure Models with Random Residuals: Item Modeling for Explanation and Item Generation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 84-104, January.
    8. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    9. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    10. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    11. Diaz-Serrano, Luis & Nilsson, William, 2022. "The reliability of students’ earnings expectations," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    12. Matsiori, Steriani K., 2020. "Application of the New Environmental Paradigm to Greece: A critical case study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 335-344.
    13. Alfonso Miranda & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, 2006. "Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching and sample selection models for binary, ordinal, and count variables," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(3), pages 285-308, September.
    14. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    15. Sauer, Uta & Fischer, Anke, 2010. "Willingness to pay, attitudes and fundamental values -- On the cognitive context of public preferences for diversity in agricultural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-9, November.
    16. Fiona Gibson & Michael Burton, 2014. "Salt or Sludge? Exploring Preferences for Potable Water Sources," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(3), pages 453-476, March.
    17. Petr Mariel & Linda Arata, 2022. "Incorporating attitudes into the evaluation of preferences regarding agri‐environmental practices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 430-451, June.
    18. Halkos, George, 2012. "Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes," MPRA Paper 39557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2019. "Distinguishing protest responses in contingent valuation: A conceptualization of motivations and attitudes behind them," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, January.
    20. Nils Droste & Claudia Becker & Irene Ring & Rui Santos, 2018. "Decentralization Effects in Ecological Fiscal Transfers: A Bayesian Structural Time Series Analysis for Portugal," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 1027-1051, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aare09:47943. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.