IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/04-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to Don’t Know Responses in Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Caudill
  • Peter Groothuis

Abstract

Wedevelop a multinomial logitmodel with missing information that can be used to test for hidden alternatives in random utility models and contingent valuation analysis. To illustrate our latentchoice technique, we focus on the “don’t know” responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. In this version of the latent-choice model, we probabilistically reassign “don’t know” responses to either the “yes” or “no” categories (or leave them in the “don’t know” category), if indicated by the data. We find that in our two studies a statistically significant number of the “don’t know” responses are actually “no” responses.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Caudill & Peter Groothuis, 2004. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to Don’t Know Responses in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 04-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:04-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George R. Parsons & GAndrew J. Plantinga & GKevin J. Boyle, 2000. "Narrow Choice Sets in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 86-99.
    2. 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.
    3. Robert L. Hicks & Ivar E. Strand, 2000. "The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(3), pages 374-385.
    4. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(2), pages 335-338, May.
    5. Mary F. Evans & Nicholas E. Flores & Kevin J. Boyle, 2003. "Multiple-Bounded Uncertainty Choice Data as Probabilistic Intentions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 549-560.
    6. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    7. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    8. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    9. George R. Parsons & A. Brett Hauber, 1998. "Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 32-48.
    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. Groothuis, Peter A. & Whitehead, John C., 2009. "The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(02), pages 271-280, October.
    2. Kilgore, Michael A. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Schertz, Joseph & Taff, Steven J., 2008. "What does it take to get family forest owners to enroll in a forest stewardship-type program?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 507-514, October.
    3. Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Lewis, Darius, 2008. "Processor Willingness to Adopt a Crawfish Peeling Machine: An Application of Technology Adoption under Uncertainty," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(01), April.
    4. Groothuis, Peter A. & Groothuis, Jana D. & Whitehead, John C., 2008. "Green vs. green: Measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1545-1550, April.
    5. Groothuis, Peter A. & Cockerill, Kristan & Mohr, Tanga McDaniel, 2015. "Water does not flow up hill: determinants of willingness to pay for water conservation measures in the mountains of western North Carolina," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 88-95.
    6. Seon-Ae Kim & Jeffrey M. Gillespie & Krishna P. Paudel, 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 235-252, September.
    7. Kristin Cockerill & Pete Groothuis & Tanga Mohr & Courtney Cooper, 2014. "Individual water: Water source as an indicator of attitudes about water management and conservation in rural regions," Working Papers 14-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    8. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2009. "Dichotomous-choice contingent valuation with 'dont know' responses and misreporting," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(7), pages 1137-1152.
    9. Eli P. Fenichel & Frank Lupi & John P. Hoehn & Michael D. Kaplowitz, 2009. "Split-Sample Tests of "No Opinion" Responses in an Attribute-Based Choice Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 348-362.
    10. Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, 2006. "Testing for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Using a Latent Choice Multinomial Logit Model," Working Papers 06-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    11. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2015. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    12. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga A. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan A. Cockerill & William P. Anderson, Jr. & Chuanhui Gu, "undated". "The Influence of Scientific Information on the Willingness to Pay for Stormwater Runoff Abatement," Working Papers 17-05, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    13. Peter A. Groothuis & Jana D. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, 2006. "The Willingness to Pay to Remove Billboards and Improve Mountain Views," Working Papers 06-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:apl:wpaper:04-07. 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: (O. Ashton Morgan). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.