IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uwauwp/103428.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Determining the change in welfare estimates from introducing measurement error in non-linear choice models

Author

Listed:
  • Gibson, Fiona L.
  • Burton, Michael P.

Abstract

Observed and unobserved characteristics of an individual are often used by researchers to explain choices over the provision of environmental goods. One means for identifying what is typically an unobserved characteristic, such as an attitude, is through some data reduction technique, such as factor analysis. However, the resultant variable represents the true attitude with measurement error, and hence, when included into a non-linear choice model, introduces bias in the model. There are well established methods to overcome this issue, which are seldom implemented. In an application to preferences over two water source alternatives for Perth in Western Australia, we use structural equation modeling within a discrete choice model to determine whether welfare measures are significantly impacted by ignoring measurement error in latent attitudes, and the advantage to policy makers from understanding what drives certain attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Gibson, Fiona L. & Burton, Michael P., 2011. "Determining the change in welfare estimates from introducing measurement error in non-linear choice models," Working Papers 103428, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uwauwp:103428
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.103428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/103428/files/WP110010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.103428?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. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    2. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, 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. Fiona Gibson & Michael Burton, 2014. "Erratum to: Salt or Sludge? Exploring Preferences for Potable Water Sources," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(3), pages 477-477, March.

    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. Matsiori, Steriani K., 2020. "Application of the New Environmental Paradigm to Greece: A critical case study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 335-344.
    2. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    3. Michela Faccioli & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega, 2018. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as simultaneous determinants of preferences for environmental goods," Working Papers 2018-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Zohreh Khalili Ardali & Hamid Amirnejad & Soleiman Mohammadi Limaei & Sadegh Salehi, 2024. "Assessment of Recreational Value in a Protected Forest Area Considering the New Environmental Paradigm (Case Study: Helen Forest, Southwestern Iran)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Ndebele, Tom & Marsh, Dan, 2014. "Environmental attitude and the demand for green electricity in the context of supplier choice: A case study of the New Zealand retail electricity market," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 188376, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Gibson, Fiona L. & Burton, Michael P., 2009. "Biased estimates in discrete choice models: the appropriate inclusion of psychometric data into the valuation of recycled wastewater," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47943, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    8. Mariel, Petr & Artabe, Alaitz & Liebe, Ulf & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2024. "An assessment of the current use of hybrid choice models in environmental economics, and considerations for future applications," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    9. repec:sae:envval:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:209-232 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Choi, Jihye & Kim, Justine Jihyun & Lee, Jongsu, 2024. "Public willingness to pay for mitigating local conflicts over the construction of renewable energy facilities: A contingent valuation study in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    11. Courard-Hauri, David & Klimas, Christie A. & Parrish, Conor, 2020. "An analysis of the long-term social discount rate and the valuation of large environmental losses using non-monetary tradeoffs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2012. "Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-94.
    13. Yoo, James & Ready, Richard C., 2014. "Preference heterogeneity for renewable energy technology," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 101-114.
    14. Ward, David O. & Clark, Christopher D. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Yen, Steven T. & Russell, Clifford S., 2011. "Factors influencing willingness-to-pay for the ENERGY STAR® label," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1450-1458, March.
    15. Frederich Kirsten & Mduduzi Biyase, 2023. "Environmental perceptions and sustainable consumption behavior. The disparity among South Africans," Economics Working Papers edwrg-06-2023, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, revised 2023.
    16. Clem Tisdell, 2005. "Linking Policies For Biodiversity Conservation With Advances In Behavioral Economics," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 50(spec0), pages 449-462.
    17. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    18. Halkos, George, 2013. "The relationship between people’s attitude and willingness to pay for river conservation," MPRA Paper 50560, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Meldrum, James R., 2015. "Comparing different attitude statements in latent class models of stated preferences for managing an invasive forest pathogen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 13-22.
    20. Choi, Andy Sungnok & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2006. "A Critique of Conventional Non-market Valuation: Attitudes and Action," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174461, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    21. Yanju Luo & Jinyang Deng & Chad Pierskalla & Ju-hyoung Lee & Jiayao Tang, 2022. "New Ecological Paradigm, Leisure Motivation, and Wellbeing Satisfaction: A Comparative Analysis of Recreational Use of Urban Parks before and after the COVID-19 Outbreak," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-28, August.

    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:uwauwp:103428. 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/aruwaau.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.