IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeeman/v57y2009i2p226-237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Balcombe, Kelvin
  • Chalak, Ali
  • Fraser, Iain

Abstract

In this paper, the mixed logit (ML) using Bayesian methods was employed to examine willingness-to-pay (WTP) to consume bread produced with reduced levels of pesticides so as to ameliorate environmental quality, from data generated by a choice experiment. Model comparison used the marginal likelihood, which is preferable for Bayesian model comparison and testing. Models containing constant and random parameters for a number of distributions were considered, along with models in 'preference space' and 'WTP space' as well as those allowing for misreporting. We found: strong support for the ML estimated in WTP space; little support for fixing the price coefficient a common practice advocated and adopted in the environmental economics literature; and, weak evidence for misreporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:57:y:2009:i:2:p:226-237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095-0696(08)00073-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joel Huber and Kenneth Train., 2000. "On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths," Economics Working Papers E00-289, University of California at Berkeley.
    2. 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.
    3. K. Balcombe & A. Bailey & A. Chalak & I. Fraser, 2007. "Bayesian Estimation of Willingness‐to‐pay Where Respondents Mis‐report Their Preferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 69(3), pages 413-438, June.
    4. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    5. Andrews, Donald W K, 1991. "Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 817-858, May.
    6. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    7. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    8. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    9. Murdock, Jennifer, 2006. "Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-25, January.
    10. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    11. Garrett Sonnier & Andrew Ainslie & Thomas Otter, 2007. "Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 313-331, September.
    12. Adam Drucker, 2007. "Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Cattle Traits among Cattle-Keeping Households in East Africa," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1005-1019.
    13. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    14. Gro Steine & Kari Kolstad, 2006. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1050-1061.
    15. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on GM Foods—Choice Experiments with Swedish Consumers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 152-161.
    16. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    17. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    18. Li, Hongyi & Maddala, G. S., 1997. "Bootstrapping cointegrating regressions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 297-318, October.
    19. Hamilton, Stephen F. & Sunding, David L. & Zilberman, David, 2003. "Public goods and the value of product quality regulations: the case of food safety," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 799-817, March.
    20. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    21. Peter E. Rossi & Robert E. McCulloch & Greg M. Allenby, 1996. "The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 321-340.
    22. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
    23. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    24. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    25. Jayson Lusk & Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster, 2007. "Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 499-521, April.
    26. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    27. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    28. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    29. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    30. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Conzalex-Roa, M.C., 2005. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24747, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    31. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-21, January.
    32. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    33. Bjorner, Thomas Bue & Hansen, L.G.Lars Garn & Russell, Clifford S., 2004. "Environmental labeling and consumers' choice--an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 411-434, May.
    34. 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.
    35. Layton, David F. & Levine, Richard A., 2003. "How Much Does the Far Future Matter? A Hierarchical Bayesian Analysis of the Public's Willingness to Mitigate Ecological Impacts of Climate Change," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 98, pages 533-544, January.
    36. Smith, Martin D., 2005. "State dependence and heterogeneity in fishing location choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 319-340, September.
    37. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    38. Marianne Zandersen & Mette Termansen & Frank Søndergaard Jensen, 2007. "Testing Benefits Transfer of Forest Recreation Values over a Twenty-Year Time Horizon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(3), pages 412-440.
    39. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    40. Dan Rigby & Mike Burton, 2006. "Modeling Disinterest and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(4), pages 485-509, April.
    41. Alfnes, Frode & Guttormsen, Atle G. & Steine, Gro & Kolstad, Kari, 2006. "Ajae Appendix: Consumers’ Willingness To Pay For The Color Of Salmon: A Choice Experiment With Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-8, November.
    42. Jordan Louviere, 2006. "What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You: Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 173-188, May.
    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. Mariel, Petr & Artabe, Alaitz, 2020. "Interpreting correlated random parameters in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    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. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    4. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    5. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    6. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny & Hynes, Stephen, 2012. "Exploring cost heterogeneity in recreational demand," Working Papers 148832, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    7. 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.
    8. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Ricardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2006. "Utility in WTP Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," Working Papers in Economics 06/15, University of Waikato.
    10. 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.
    11. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    12. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    13. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    14. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Derive Individual-Specific WTP Estimates for Landscape Improvements under Agri-Environmental Schemes: Evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Irel," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12220, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Anderson, Christopher M. & Das, Chhandita & Tyrrell, Timothy J., 2006. "Parking preferences among tourists in Newport, Rhode Island," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 334-353, May.
    16. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Sckokai, Paolo & Veneziani, Mario & Moro, Daniele & Castellari, Elena, 2014. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety: the case of mycotoxins in milk," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Using mixed logit models to derive individual-specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0607, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    19. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    20. Edel Doherty & Danny Campbell & Stephen Hynes, 2013. "Models of Site-choice for Walks in Rural Ireland: Exploring Cost Heterogeneity," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 446-466, June.
    21. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Integrating landscape improvement indices and discrete choice experiments: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0609, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.

    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:eee:jeeman:v:57:y:2009:i:2:p:226-237. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870 .

    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.