IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/ajagec/v106y2024i1p76-95.html

A new empirical approach for mitigating exploding implicit prices in mixed multinomial logit models

Author

Listed:
  • Romain Crastes dit Sourd

Abstract

This paper introduces a new shifted negative log‐normal distribution for the price parameter in mixed multinomial logit models. The new distribution, labeled as the μ‐shifted negative log‐normal distribution, has desirable properties for welfare analysis and in particular a point mass that is further away from zero than the negative log‐normal distribution. This contributes to mitigating the “exploding” implicit prices issue commonly found when the price parameter is specified as negative log‐normal and the model is in preference space. The new distribution is tested on five stated preference datasets. Comparisons are made with standard alternative approaches such as the willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) space approach. It is found that the μ‐shifted distribution yields substantially lower mean marginal WTP estimates compared to the negative log‐normal specification and similar to the values derived from models estimated in WTP‐space with flexible distributions, while at the same time fitting the data as well as the negative log‐normal specification.

Suggested Citation

  • Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2024. "A new empirical approach for mitigating exploding implicit prices in mixed multinomial logit models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(1), pages 76-95, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:ajagec:v:106:y:2024:i:1:p:76-95
    DOI: 10.1111/ajae.12367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12367
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajae.12367?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. McFadden, Daniel, 2022. "Instability in mixed logit demand models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    2. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Francesco Marangon, 2008. "Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 145-162, June.
    3. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Persson, Lars & Broberg, Thomas, 2020. "Using an integrated choice and latent variable model to understand the impact of “professional” respondents in a stated preference survey," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    4. Rungie, Cam & Scarpa, Riccardo & Thiene, Mara, 2014. "The influence of individuals in forming collective household preferences for water quality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 161-174.
    5. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    6. Danny Campbell & Edel Doherty, 2013. "Combining discrete and continuous mixing distributions to identify niche markets for food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 287-312, March.
    7. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 379-395, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Logit Mixed Logit Under Asymmetry and Multimodality of WTP: A Monte Carlo Evaluation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(2), pages 643-662, March.
    10. Dan Rigby & Kelvin Balcombe & Michael Burton, 2009. "Mixed Logit Model Performance and Distributional Assumptions: Preferences and GM foods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 279-295, March.
    11. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    15. Dilek Uz & Steven Buck & David Sunding, 2022. "Fixed or mixed? Farmer‐level heterogeneity in response to changes in salinity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1343-1363, August.
    16. 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.
    17. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    18. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    19. Valeria M. Toledo‐Gallegos & Jed Long & Danny Campbell & Tobias Börger & Nick Hanley, 2021. "Spatial clustering of willingness to pay for ecosystem services," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 673-697, September.
    20. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Budziński, Wiktor, 2019. "Simulation error in maximum likelihood estimation of discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 73-85.
    21. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Romain Crastes Dit Sourd & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Post-Print hal-03712582, HAL.
    22. Petr Mariel & Simona Demel & Alberto Longo, 2021. "Modelling welfare estimates in discrete choice experiments for seaweed-based renewable energy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-22, November.
    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. Martinet, Vincent & David, Maïa & Mermet-Bijon, Vincent & Crastes Dit Sourd, Romain, 2025. "Cost vector effects in forced-choice discrete choice experiments: Assessing the acceptability of future glyphosate policies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    2. Quainoo, Ruth & Howard, Gregory & Gaur, Vasundhara & Lang, Corey, 2024. "Model choice and framing effects: Do discrete choice modeling decisions affect loss aversion estimates?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    3. John Buckell & Alice Wreford & Matthew Quaife & Thomas O. Hancock, 2025. "A break from the norm? Parametric representations of preference heterogeneity for discrete choice models in health," Papers 2506.14099, arXiv.org.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Börger, Tobias & Hanley, Nick & Meginnis, Keila & Ndebele, Tom & Siyal, Ghamz E. Ali & Beaumont, Nicola & de Vries, Frans P., 2024. "Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    5. Horvath, Camille & Koning, Martin & Raton, Gwenaëlle & Combes, François, 2024. "Short food supply chains: The influence of outlet and accessibility on farmer and consumer preferences. Two discrete choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    6. Boxebeld, Sander & Mouter, Niek & van Exel, Job, 2025. "Public preferences for skin cancer prevention policies: a discrete choice experiment in three European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 378(C).

    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. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    2. Welling, Malte & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Lundhede, Thomas, 2025. "Does quantity matter for distance decay? Evidence from two choice experiments on urban green," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2017. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit-Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality," Working Papers in Economics 17/23, University of Waikato.
    4. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    6. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    7. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    8. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    9. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    10. De Salvo, Maria & Scarpa, Riccardo & Capitello, Roberta & Begalli, Diego, . "Multi-country stated preferences choice analysis for fresh tomatoes," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3).
    11. Linnerud, K. & Dugstad, A. & Rygg, B.J., 2022. "Do people prefer offshore to onshore wind energy? The role of ownership and intended use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    12. Farolfi, Giulio & Johnston, Robert J., 2022. "Understanding Public Preferences for Shellfish Aquaculture Expansion: The Role of Production Technology and Environmental Impacts," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322131, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    16. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    17. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    18. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. 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.
    20. Hyojae Jung & Chanjin Chung, 2024. "Consumers’ WTP for Sustainability Turfgrass Attributes with Consideration of Aesthetic Attributes and Water Conservation Policies," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    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:wly:ajagec:v:106:y:2024:i:1:p:76-95. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-8276 .

    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.