IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea05/19138.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Generalized Estimation Methods for Non-i.i.d. Binary Data: An Application to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Sooil
  • Haab, Timothy C.

Abstract

We challenge the assumption of i.i.d random utility across alternatives embedded in typical applications of logit models to dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Using a Gumbel mixed distribution which nests a number of traditional models, we show that the logistic distribution is not a suitable distribution for contingent valuation analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Sooil & Haab, Timothy C., 2005. "Generalized Estimation Methods for Non-i.i.d. Binary Data: An Application to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19138, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea05:19138
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.19138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/19138/files/sp05ki05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.19138?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. Yoshiaki Kaoru & V. Kerry Smith & Jin Long Liu, 1995. "Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 141-151.
    2. Bhat, Chandra, 1999. "An analysis of evening commute stop-making behavior using repeated choice observations from a multi-day survey," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 495-510, September.
    3. Sheng Yue, 2000. "The Gumbel Mixed Model Applied to Storm Frequency Analysis," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 14(5), pages 377-389, October.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    6. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    7. McFadden, Daniel, 1989. "A Method of Simulated Moments for Estimation of Discrete Response Models without Numerical Integration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 995-1026, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    10. 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.
    11. Chandra R. Bhat, 2000. "Incorporating Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Urban Work Travel Mode Choice Modeling," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 228-238, May.
    12. Peter Groothuis & John Whitehead, 2002. "Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(15), pages 1935-1940.
    13. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1999. "Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(1), pages 62-72, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Bhat, Chandra R., 1997. "Covariance heterogeneity in nested logit models: Econometric structure and application to intercity travel," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 11-21, February.
    16. Smith, V. Kerry, 1996. "Pricing What is Priceless: A Status Report on Non-Market Valuation of Environmental Resources," Working Papers 96-30, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    19. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang, 1998. "Part-Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    7. 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.
    8. Termansen, Mette & Zandersen, Marianne & McClean, Colin J., 2008. "Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 81-97, January.
    9. 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.
    10. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    11. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    12. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    13. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    14. Marianne Zandersen & Mette Termansen & Frank S. Jensen, 2005. "Valuing New Forest Sites over Time: the Case of Afforestation and Recreation in Denmark," Working Papers FNU-80, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Aug 2005.
    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. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    17. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Norton, D. & Hynes, S., 2014. "A Choice Experiment Approach to assess the costs of degradation as specified by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Working Papers 186382, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    20. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:ags:aaea05:19138. 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: AgEcon Search (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.