Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models

This paper reports the findings from a discrete-choice experiment designed to estimate the economic benefits associated with rural landscape improvements in Ireland. Using a mixed logit model, the panel nature of the dataset is exploited to retrieve willingness-to-pay values for every individual in the sample. This departs from customary approaches in which the willingness-to-pay estimates are normally expressed as measures of central tendency of an a priori distribution. Random-effects models for panel data are subsequently used to identify the determinants of the individual-specific willingness-to-pay estimates. In comparison with the standard methods used to incorporate individual-specific variables into the analysis of discrete-choice experiments, the analytical approach outlined in this paper is shown to add considerable explanatory power to the welfare estimates. Copyright 2007 The Agricultural Economics Society.

[1]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  'Irrational' stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. , 2005, Health economics.

[2]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study , 2007 .

[3]  K. Train.  Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People , 1998 .

[4]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Bounded Distributions of Correlated Partworths , 2005 .

[5]  D. Hensher.  How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load , 2006 .

[6]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[7]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[8]  N. Hanley,et al.  Do Local Landscape Patterns Affect the Demand for Landscape Amenities Protection , 2003 .

[9]  Adrian Pagan,et al.  The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics , 1980 .

[10]  David F. Layton,et al.  Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change , 2000, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[11]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[12]  K. Boyle,et al.  Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions , 2005, Land Economics.

[13]  John M. Rose,et al.  Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models , 2006 .

[14]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models , 2002 .

[15]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[16]  K. Train,et al.  Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns , 1998 .

[17]  John M. Rose,et al.  Using Classical Simulation-Based Estimators to Estimate Individual WTP Values , 2005 .

[18]  F. Norwood,et al.  Effect of Experimental Design on Choice‐Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates , 2005 .

[19]  N. Hanley,et al.  Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? , 2002 .

[20]  Susana Mourato,et al.  Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments , 2002 .

[21]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[22]  C. Bhat.  Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model , 2001 .

[23]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes , 2004 .

[24]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[25]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[26]  F. Johnson,et al.  Sources and Effects of Utility-Theoretic Inconsistency in Stated-Preference Surveys , 2001 .

[27]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence , 2005 .

[28]  K. Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[29]  D. Hensher,et al.  Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates , 2005 .

[30]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? , 2006, Health economics.

[31]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[32]  C. Bhat.  Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences , 2003 .

[33]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment , 2005, Land Economics.

[34]  John W. Polak,et al.  An alternative method to the scrambled Halton sequence for removing correlation between standard Halton sequences in high dimensions , 2003 .