IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt0565c0b2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Heterogeneous Preferences for Water Quality: A Finite Mixture Model of Beach Recreation in Southern California

Author

Listed:
  • Hilger, James
  • Hanemann, Michael

Abstract

This paper uses a finite mixture logit (FML) model to investigate the heterogeneity of preferences of beach users for water quality at beaches in Southern California. The results are compared with conventional approaches based conditional logit (CL) and random parameters logit (RPL). The FML approach captures variation in preferences by modeling individual recreator preferences as a mixture of several distinct preference groups, where group membership is a function of individual characteristic and seasonal variables. The FML parameter estimates are used to calculate welfare measures for improvements in beach quality through a reduction of water pollution. These bound the traditional CL and RPL mean welfare estimates, and have the advantage of highlighting the distribution of the population sample's preferences. The data indicate the existence of four representative preference groups. As a result, willingness to pay measures for improvements in water quality can be weighted across individuals to calculate the distribution of individual welfare measures. One of the groups is people who go to the beach with small children. An interesting finding is that these people have a lower mean WTP for improving water quality than people who go without a small child. This may well be an example of cognitive dissonance: parents find they go to the beach more often than others who don't have small children, since that keeps the children occupied and happy, and they adapt their perception of the water quality to be consistent with their behavior. Previous environmental and resource economic applications of the FML have been limited to applications with small choice sets (6) and group membership variables (4). This paper extends the FML model through the estimation of a large (51) choice set with 9 membership variables. This application is the first to incorporate seasonal variables into the group membership function to capture seasonal heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt0565c0b2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/0565c0b2.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    2. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    3. Mohn, Craig & Hanemann, W. Michael & Pendleton, Linwood & Layton, David, 2003. "Shifting Sands: A Preliminary Exploration of Seasonal Variation in Preferences for Beaches," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0qd37084, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    4. Kling, Catherine L. & Bockstael, Nancy & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1987. "Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a Recreational Demand Framework," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1594, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Edward R. Morey & Robert D. Rowe & Michael Watson, 1993. "A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 578-592.
    6. Jeroen K. Vermunt, 2004. "An EM algorithm for the estimation of parametric and nonparametric hierarchical nonlinear models," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 58(2), pages 220-233, May.
    7. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1982. "Applied Welfare Analysis with Qualitative Response Models," CUDARE Working Papers 7160, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    10. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    11. Provencher, Bill & Bishop, R.C.Richard C., 2004. "Does accounting for preference heterogeneity improve the forecasting of a random utility model? A case study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 793-810, July.
    12. Wedel, M, et al, 1993. "A Latent Class Poisson Regression Model for Heterogeneous Count Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 397-411, Oct.-Dec..
    13. Moshe Ben-Akiva & Joffre Swait, 1986. "The Akaike Likelihood Ratio Index," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 133-136, May.
    14. Heckman, James & Singer, Burton, 1984. "A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 271-320, March.
    15. Peter Arcidiacono & John Bailey Jones, 2003. "Finite Mixture Distributions, Sequential Likelihood and the EM Algorithm," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 933-946, May.
    16. Kamakura, Wagner A & Wedel, Michel, 2004. "An Empirical Bayes Procedure for Improving Individual-Level Estimates and Predictions from Finite Mixtures of Multinomial Logit Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 121-125, January.
    17. Sylvia. Richardson & Peter J. Green, 1997. "On Bayesian Analysis of Mixtures with an Unknown Number of Components (with discussion)," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(4), pages 731-792.
    18. Udo Ebert, 1998. "Evaluation of Nonmarket Goods: Recovering Unconditional Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 241-254.
    19. Kamel Jedidi & Harsharanjeet S. Jagpal & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 1997. "Finite-Mixture Structural Equation Models for Response-Based Segmentation and Unobserved Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 39-59.
    20. Bill Provencher & Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Richard C. Bishop, 2002. "A Finite Mixture Logit Model of Recreational Angling with Serially Correlated Random Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1066-1075.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. M. Genius & E. Strazzera, 2000. "Evaluation of likelihood based tests for non-nested dichotomus choice contingent valuation models," Working Paper CRENoS 200012, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    24. Nick Hanley & W. Douglass Shaw & Robert E. Wright (ed.), 2003. "The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2712.
    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. Koichi Kuriyama & James Hilger & Michael Hanemann, 2013. "A Random Parameter Model with Onsite Sampling for Recreation Site Choice: An Application to Southern California Shoreline Sportfishing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(4), pages 481-497, December.
    2. Mo Zhou & Winter Maxwell Thayer & John F. P. Bridges, 2018. "Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 175-187, February.

    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. 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.
    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. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    4. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    5. 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).
    6. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    7. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2010. "Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 205-216, August.
    8. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2006. "Using Continuous and Finite Mixture Models to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in a group of Outdoor Recreationalists," Working Papers 0602, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    9. Alegre, Joaquín & Mateo, Sara & Pou, Llorenç, 2011. "A latent class approach to tourists’ length of stay," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 555-563.
    10. 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.
    11. Kim, Sung Hoo & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2023. "Finite mixture (or latent class) modeling in transportation: Trends, usage, potential, and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 134-173.
    12. 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.
    13. Kloos, Julia & Tsegai, Daniel W., 2009. "Preferences for domestic water services in the Middle Olifants sub-basin of South Africa," Discussion Papers 49970, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    14. Landry, Craig E. & Liu, Haiyong, 2009. "A semi-parametric estimator for revealed and stated preference data--An application to recreational beach visitation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 205-218, March.
    15. William Breffle & Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher, 2011. "A Joint Latent-Class Model: Combining Likert-Scale Preference Statements With Choice Data to Harvest Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, September.
    16. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    17. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    18. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2004. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeast Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Participation," Working Papers 2004.131, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Oryani, Bahareh & Koo, Yoonmo & Shafiee, Afsaneh & Rezania, Shahabaldin & Jung, Jiyeon & Choi, Hyunhong & Khan, Muhammad Kamran, 2022. "Heterogeneous preferences for EVs: Evidence from Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 675-691.
    20. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa & Jordan Louviere, 2015. "Addressing Preference Heterogeneity, Multiple Scales and Attribute Attendance with a Correlated Finite Mixing Model of Tap Water Choice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 637-656, November.

    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:cdl:agrebk:qt0565c0b2. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.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.