IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v60y2015i3d10.1007_s10640-014-9769-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intra-respondent Heterogeneity in a Stated Choice Survey on Wetland Conservation in Belarus: First Steps Towards Creating a Link with Uncertainty in Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Stephane Hess

    () (University of Leeds)

  • Marek Giergiczny

    () (University of Warsaw)

Abstract

Abstract Applications of discrete choice models in environmental valuation increasingly use a random coefficient specification, such as mixed logit, to represent taste heterogeneity. The majority of applications rely on data containing multiple observations for each respondent, where a common assumption is that tastes stay constant across choices for the same respondent. We question this assumption and make use of a model developed in the transport field which allows tastes to vary over choices for each consumer in addition to variation across consumers. An empirical analysis making use of a stated choice dataset for wetland conservation in Belarus shows that superior performance is obtained by allowing jointly for the two types of heterogeneity and that recovery of these intra-respondent variations is not possible using standard approaches, such as allowing for scale heterogeneity across tasks. We show also that intra-respondent heterogeneity can be especially high for attributes which respondents are unfamiliar with, and that a failure to account for it can substantially affect welfare estimates. We interpret this as an indication that this heterogeneity relates primarily to uncertainty. Finally, we offer initial insights into the relationship between intra-respondent heterogeneity and findings on uncertainty in a contingent valuation context.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephane Hess & Marek Giergiczny, 2015. "Intra-respondent Heterogeneity in a Stated Choice Survey on Wetland Conservation in Belarus: First Steps Towards Creating a Link with Uncertainty in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(3), pages 327-347, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:60:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s10640-014-9769-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-014-9769-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-014-9769-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    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. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    2. Norwood, F. Bailey, 2005. "Can Calibration Reconcile Stated and Observed Preferences?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(01), pages 237-248, April.
    3. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    4. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Thomas P. Holmes & Kevin J. Boyle, 2005. "Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    7. María Yáñez & Elisabetta Cherchi & Benjamin Heydecker & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2011. "On the Treatment of Repeated Observations in Panel Data: Efficiency of Mixed Logit Parameter Estimates," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 393-418, September.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    9. Li Chuan-Zhong & Mattsson Leif, 1995. "Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-269, March.
    10. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    11. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    12. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    13. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    14. Roy Brouwer & Thijs Dekker & John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 93-109, May.
    15. Klaus Moeltner & David F. Layton, 2002. "A Censored Random Coefficients Model For Pooled Survey Data With Application To The Estimation Of Power Outage Costs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 552-561, August.
    16. 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.
    17. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Pere Riera & Marek Giergiczny, 2012. "The influence of cheap talk on willingness-to-pay ranges: some empirical evidence from a contingent valuation study," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(6), pages 753-763, September.
    18. Nick Hanley & Bengt Kriström & Jason F. Shogren, 2009. "Coherent Arbitrariness: On Value Uncertainty for Environmental Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 41-50.
    19. 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.
    20. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    21. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    22. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & Provencher, Bill, 2005. "Static modeling of dynamic recreation behavior: Implications for prediction and welfare estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 617-636, November.
    23. Bhat, Chandra R. & Sardesai, Rupali, 2006. "The impact of stop-making and travel time reliability on commute mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 709-730, November.
    24. Mimako Kobayashi & Klaus Moeltner & Kimberly Rollins, 2012. "Latent Thresholds Analysis of Choice Data under Value Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 189-208.
    25. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E., 2011. "Recovery of inter- and intra-personal heterogeneity using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 973-990, August.
    26. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    27. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    28. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    29. Bhat, Chandra R. & Castelar, Saul, 2002. "A unified mixed logit framework for modeling revealed and stated preferences: formulation and application to congestion pricing analysis in the San Francisco Bay area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 593-616, August.
    30. Ariely, Dan & Loewenstein, George & Prelec, Drazen, 2006. "Tom Sawyer and the construction of value," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 1-10, May.
    31. Heng Z. Chen & Stephen R. Cosslett, 1998. "Environmental Quality Preference and Benefit Estimation in Multinomial Probit Models: A Simulation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 512-520.
    32. Hess, Stephane & Rose, John M., 2009. "Allowing for intra-respondent variations in coefficients estimated on repeated choice data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 708-719, July.
    33. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    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. repec:eee:renene:v:123:y:2018:i:c:p:301-311 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

    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:kap:enreec:v:60:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s10640-014-9769-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.