IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/stl/stledp/2009-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Hanley, Nicholas
  • Riera, Antoni
  • Torres, Cati

Abstract

Despite the vital role of utility functional form in welfare measurement, the implications of working with incorrect utility specifications have not been examined in the choice experiments (CE) literature. This paper addresses the importance of the specification of both non-monetary attributes and the marginal utility of income. Monte Carlo experiments have been conducted wherein different attribute specifications and assumptions for the Cost parameter -that is, different functional forms of utility- have been assumed to generate simulated choices on which Multi-Nomial Logit and Mixed Logit models have been estimated under correct and incorrect assumptions about the true, underlying utility function. The inferred values have been compared with the true ones directly calculated from the true utility specifications. Results show that working with simple experimental designs and continuous-linear specifications makes attribute specification irrelevant for measuring attribute marginal values regardless of the true effects the attribute has on utility.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanley, Nicholas & Riera, Antoni & Torres, Cati, 2009. "The implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2009-07, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:stl:stledp:2009-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/823
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1997. "The Performance of Nested Logit Models When Welfare Estimation Is the Goal," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 792-802.
    2. Catherine L. Kling & Richard J. Sexton, 1990. "Bootstrapping in Applied Welfare Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 406-418.
    3. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    4. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    5. Kling, Catherine L., 1989. "Importance of Functional Form in the Estimation of Welfare (The)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1596, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 2003. "Recreation Demand Models," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10211, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, May.
    8. Kling, Catherine L. & Herriges, Joseph A., 1997. "Model Performance of Nested Logit Models when Welfare Estimation is the Goal, The," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12331, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. Kling, Catherine L., 1991. "Estimating the precision of welfare measures," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 244-259, November.
    10. Kling, Catherine L., 1989. "The Importance Of Functional Form In The Estimation Of Welfare," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(01), July.
    11. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    12. Kling, Catherine L. & Thomson, Cynthia J., 1996. "Implications of Model Specification for Welfare Estimation in Nested Logit Models (The)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1599, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Catherine L. Kling & Cynthia J. Thomson, 1996. "The Implications of Model Specification for Welfare Estimation in Nested Logit Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 103-114.
    14. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1997. "Performance of Nested Logit Models when Welfare Estimation Is the Goal (The)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1480, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Kling, Catherine L., 1997. "Evaluation of the Gains from Combining Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Data to Value Nonmarket Goods (An)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1598, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    16. Kling, Catherine L., 1988. "Reliability of Estimates of Environmental Benefits from Recreation Demand Models (The)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1587, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2005. "Effect of Experimental Design on Choice-Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(3), pages 771-785.
    18. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294.
    19. Kling, Catherine L., 1987. "Simulation Approach to Comparing Multiple Site Recreation Demand Models Using Chesapeake Bay Survey Data (A)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1583, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Riccardo Scarpa & Ian Bateman, 2000. "Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 299-311.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    utility specification; attributes; welfare measurement; accuracy; efficiency; choice experiments; Monte Carlo analysis;

    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:stl:stledp:2009-07. 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: (Liam Delaney). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/destiuk.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.