IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v98y2016i1p297-313..html

The Impact of Perceptions in Averting-decision Models: An Application of the Special Regressor Method to Drinking Water Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Christophe Bontemps
  • Céline Nauges

Abstract

Households' monetary valuation of water quality is a prerequisite for efficient water resource management and the valuation of water quality protection policies. Individuals are commonly questioned about their perception of risk in valuation surveys based on stated-preference methods and revealed-preference methods such as averting-behavior models. These subjective and often discrete measures are commonly used to explain individuals' actions to protect themselves against these risks. Perceptions appear as endogenous variables in traditional theoretical averting-decision models but, quite surprisingly, endogeneity of perceived risk is not always controlled for in empirical studies. In this article, we argue that perceptions have to be treated as endogenous to averting decisions in order to produce accurate and reliable measures of households' valuation of water quality improvements. We present various binary averting decision models featuring an endogenous discrete variable (such as risk perception). In particular, we compare the traditional bivariate probit model with the special regressor model, which is less well-known and relies on a different set of assumptions. In the empirical illustration using household data from Australia, Canada, and France, we study how the perceived health impacts of tap water affect a household's decision to drink water from the tap. Individuals' perceptions are found to be endogenous and significant for all models, but the estimated marginal effect is sensitive to the chosen model. Our empirical application also includes some tests of the special regressor estimator's sensitivity to underlying assumptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Christophe Bontemps & Céline Nauges, 2016. "The Impact of Perceptions in Averting-decision Models: An Application of the Special Regressor Method to Drinking Water Choices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(1), pages 297-313.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:98:y:2016:i:1:p:297-313.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aav046
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aaron J. Enriquez & Kevin Berry & Maria Fernandez & Nichar Gregory & Kacey C. Ernst & Mary H. Hayden & Maria Diuk-Wasser, 2025. "Simple Stated Preference Questions Can Enhance Transdisciplinary Projects: Linking Perceived Risks With Willingness to Spray and Pay," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(1), pages 81-124, January.
    2. Anna-Maria Aksan & William F. Vásquez, 2019. "Quality Perceptions and Water Treatment Behavior at the Household Level," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-33, July.
    3. Nauges, Céline & Wheeler, Sarah Ann, 2017. "The Complex Relationship Between Households' Climate Change Concerns and Their Water and Energy Mitigation Behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 87-94.
    4. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2014. "The demand for tap water quality: Survey evidence on water hardness and aesthetic quality," CIES Research Paper series 23-2014, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.
    5. Qinan Lu & Xiaodong Du & Huanguang Qiu, 2022. "Adoption patterns and productivity impacts of agricultural mechanization services," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(5), pages 826-845, September.
    6. Nicole Maestas & Kathleen J. Mullen & David Powell & Till von Wachter & Jeffrey B. Wenger, 2023. "The Value of Working Conditions in the United States and the Implications for the Structure of Wages," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(7), pages 2007-2047, July.
    7. Whelan, Adele & McGuinness, Seamus, 2017. "Does a satisfied student make a satisfied worker?," Papers WP561, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    8. Armand Totouom & Sostaine Romuald Fouéka Tagne & Jonas Ngouhouo Poufoun, 2018. "Determinants of the avoidance behaviour of householdsto cope with unsafe drinking water: case study of Doualaand Yaoundé in Cameroon," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 99(2), pages 121-148.
    9. Gautam, Tej K. & Paudel, Krishna P. & Guidry, Kurt M., 2017. "Willingness To Pay For Irrigation Water In Louisiana," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252821, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Ahamad, Mazbahul & Gustafson, Christopher & VanWormer, Elizabeth, "undated". "Ex-post Livestock Diseases, and Pastoralists' Averting Decisions in Tanzania," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235764, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Daniel, D. & Pande, Saket & Rietveld, Luuk, 2022. "Endogeneity in water use behaviour across case studies of household water treatment adoption in developing countries," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    12. Yao, Becatien H. & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Schwab, Benjamin & Amanor-Boadu, Vincent, 2022. "Mobile money, transaction costs, and market participation: evidence from Côte d’Ivoire and Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    13. Lanz, Bruno & Provins, Allan, 2017. "Using averting expenditures to estimate the demand for public goods: Combining objective and perceived quality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 20-35.
    14. Christine Reitmaier & Wolfgang Schultze & Julia Vollmer, 2025. "Corporate responsibility and corporate misbehavior: are CSR reporting firms indeed responsible?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 1804-1872, June.
    15. Liu, Yanan & Klaiber, Allen, 2022. "The Impact of Harmful Algal Blooms on Household Averting Expenditure," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322117, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Russell Triplett & Chiradip Chatterjee & Christopher K. Johnson & Parvez Ahmed, 2019. "Perceptions of Quality and Household Water Usage: A Representative Study in Jacksonville, FL," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 25(2), pages 195-208, May.
    17. Bontemps, Christophe & Nauges, Céline, 2017. "Endogenous Variables in Binary Choice Models: Some Insights for Practitioners," TSE Working Papers 17-855, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    18. Stefano Iandolo & Anna Ferragina, 2021. "International activities and innovation: Evidence from Italy with a special regressor approach," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(11), pages 3300-3325, November.
    19. Mogens Fosgerau & Dennis Kristensen, 2021. "Identification of a class of index models: A topological approach," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(1), pages 121-133.
    20. Wang, Pengfei, 2017. "Syndication and Foreignness: Venture Capital Investments in Emerging and Developed Markets," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-15.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    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:oup:ajagec:v:98:y:2016:i:1:p:297-313.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.