IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments

  • Kragt, Marit Ellen

Choice experiments have become a widespread approach to non-market environmental valuation. Given the vast range of public opinions towards environmental management changes, it is desirable that analysis of discrete choice data accounts for the possibility of unobserved heterogeneity amongst the population. There is, however, no consensus about the best way to model individual heterogeneity. This paper presents four approaches to modelling heterogeneity that are increasingly used in the literature. Latent class, mixed logit, scaled multinomial logit and generalised mixed logit (GMXL) models are estimated using case study data for catchment environmental management in Australia. A GMXL model that accounts for preference and scale heterogeneity performs best. I evaluate the impacts of models on welfare estimates and discuss the merits of each modelling approach.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/144447
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics in its series Working Papers with number 144447.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 10 Feb 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:uwauwp:144447
Contact details of provider: Postal: 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009
Phone: (61) (8) 6488 1757
Fax: (61) (8) 6488 1098
Web page: http://www.are.uwa.edu.au/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, 09.
  2. Tiziana Luisetti & Ian J. Bateman & R. Kerry Turner, 2011. "Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 284-296.
  3. Hensher, David A., 2012. "Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 480-486.
  4. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
  5. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
  6. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 379-395, November.
  7. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
  8. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, 04.
  9. Marit E Kragt & Jeff Bennett, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0916, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, revised Sep 2009.
  10. Morten Raun M�rkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & S�ren B�ye Olsen, 2011. "Is embedding entailed in consumer valuation of food safety characteristics?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 38(4), pages 587-607, October.
  11. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Louviere, Jordan, 2008. "Modelling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-28, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  12. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
  13. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2011. "A general treatment of ‘don't know’ responses from choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 38(2), pages 171-191, June.
  14. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
  15. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
  16. Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh & Patricia A. Champ, 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 255-267.
  17. Scarpa, Riccardo & Ruto, Eric S. K. & Kristjanson, Patti & Radeny, Maren & Drucker, Adam G. & Rege, John E. O., 2003. "Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 409-426, July.
  18. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
  19. Riccardo Scarpa & Sandra Notaro & Jordan Louviere & Roberta Raffaelli, 2010. "Exploring Scale Effects of Best/Worst Rank Ordered Choice Data to Estimate Benefits of Tourism in Alpine Grazing Commons," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(3), pages 809-824.
  20. Beville, Stephen T. & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2012. "Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-10.
  21. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
  22. Puckett, Sean M. & Rose, John M. & Bain, Stuart, 2012. "Modelling heterogeneity in scale directly: implications for estimates of influence in freight decision-making groups," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 50, pages 2.
  23. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
  24. Mike Burton & Dan Rigby, 2009. "Hurdle and Latent Class Approaches to Serial Non-Participation in Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 211-226, February.
  25. Morkbak, Morten Raun & Christensen, Tove & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte E. & Olsen, Soren Boye, 2009. "Is Embedding Entailed in Consumer Valuation of Food Safety Characteristics?," 113th Seminar, September 3-6, 2009, Chania, Crete, Greece 58099, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  26. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.
  27. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2010. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," MPRA Paper 23163, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  28. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
  29. David A. Hensher & William H. Greene, 2011. "Valuation of Travel Time Savings in WTP and Preference Space in the Presence of Taste and Scale Heterogeneity," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 45(3), pages 505-525, September.
  30. Christie, Mike & Gibbons, James, 2011. "The effect of individual ‘ability to choose’ (scale heterogeneity) on the valuation of environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2250-2257.
  31. 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.
  32. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
  33. Kenneth Train, 2001. "Halton Sequences for Mixed Logit," Econometrics 0012002, EconWPA.
  34. David Hensher & Matthew Beck & John Rose, 2011. "Accounting for Preference and Scale Heterogeneity in Establishing Whether it Matters Who is Interviewed to Reveal Household Automobile Purchase Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 1-22, May.
  35. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
  36. Gabriela Scheufele & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Response Strategies and Learning in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(3), pages 435-453, July.
  37. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
  38. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
  39. Klaus Glenk & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "How Sure Can You Be? A Framework for Considering Delivery Uncertainty in Benefit Assessments Based on Stated Preference Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 25-46, 02.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uwauwp:144447. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.