IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aes026/397909.html

Review of the Application of Tobit, Sample Selection, and Hurdle Models to Data from Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) are commonly applied in agricultural and environmental economics to elicit stakeholder preferences, particularly regarding various contract types, such as nature protection or product supply contracts. Beyond simply predicting the likelihood of stakeholders choosing such agreements, it is also valuable to estimate quantities, such as the hectares of land farmers are willing to allocate for nature protection or the volume of produce they are willing to supply. Selecting an appropriate econometric model is essential for analysing data effectively. This article reviews three key models (Tobit, Sample Selection, and Hurdle models) that are suitable for this type of analysis. It then critically reviews peer-reviewed studies that apply these models in agricultural and environmental contexts, highlighting that model selection is often not grounded in a thorough assessment of data characteristics or model fit. Moreover, it underscores the methodological challenges posed by the panel structure of DCE data, particularly for sample selection models. Finally, the article offers practical guidance for improving the design, model selection, and estimation strategies when eliciting both participation and quantity allocation decisions.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) are commonly applied in agricultural and environmental economics to elicit stakeholder preferences, particularly regarding various contract types, such as nature pro, 2026. "Review of the Application of Tobit, Sample Selection, and Hurdle Models to Data from Discrete Choice Experiments," 100th Annual Conference, March 23-25, 2026, Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 397909, Agricultural Economics Society (AES).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aes026:397909
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.397909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/397909/files/Insa_Thiermann_Paper_DCE_two_step_submitted_Agric_Economics.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.397909?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. Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
    2. 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.
    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. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    2. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    3. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    4. Aurore, Fransolet & Marek, Hudon & Adriano, La Gioia & Meyer, Sandrine, 2026. "Mapping visions of a just transition: A Q survey of Belgian stakeholders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    5. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    6. Braito, Michael & Leonhardt, Heidi & Penker, Marianne & Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Elisabeth & Thaler, Georg & Flint, Courtney G., 2020. "The plurality of farmers’ views on soil management calls for a policy mix," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    7. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    8. Krabbenborg, Lizet & Molin, Eric & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2020. "Public frames in the road pricing debate: A Q-methodology study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 46-53.
    9. Camille Page & Bradd Witt, 2022. "A Leap of Faith: Regenerative Agriculture as a Contested Worldview Rather Than as a Practice Change Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.
    10. Upadhaya, Suraj & Arbuckle, J. Gordon & Schulte, Lisa A., 2021. "Developing farmer typologies to inform conservation outreach in agricultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    11. Cerdá, Emilio & López-Otero, Xiral & Quiroga, Sonia & Soliño, Mario, 2025. "The present and future of offshore wind in Spain: An analysis of discourses," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C).
    12. Giorgio Provolo & Gabriele Mattachini & Alberto Finzi & Martina Cattaneo & Viviana Guido & Elisabetta Riva, 2018. "Global Warming and Acidification Potential Assessment of a Collective Manure Management System for Bioenergy Production and Nitrogen Removal in Northern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Adam, Nasir, 2026. "Farmers’ Preferences for fossil-free mineral nitrogen fertilisers: prices, production origin, climate and identity," 100th Annual Conference, March 23-25, 2026, Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 397891, Agricultural Economics Society (AES).
    14. Xin Wu & Peng Liu & Jin Li & Jing Gao & Guangyin Xu, 2024. "Information sharing and channel encroachment in biomass supply chains," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-22, September.
    15. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Rong Zhao & Xiaolu Qiu & Shaozhi Chen, 2021. "Empirical Study on the Effects of Technology Training on the Forest-Related Income of Rural Poverty-Stricken Households—Based on the PSM Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    17. Eeva ALHO, 2019. "Farmers’ Willingness To Invest In New Cooperative Instruments: A Choice Experiment," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 90(1), pages 161-186, March.
    18. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    19. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    20. Demel, Simona & Longo, Alberto & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Trading off visual disamenity for renewable energy: Willingness to pay for seaweed farming for energy production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aes026:397909. 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/aesukea.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.