Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model

This paper develops a reduced form method of controlling for differences in information sets of subjects in public good discrete choice models, using stated preference data. The main contribution of our method comes from accounting for the effect of information provided during a survey on the mean and the variance of individual-specific scale parameters. In this way we incorporate both scale heterogeneity as well as observed and unobserved preference heterogeneity to investigate differences across and within information treatments. Our approach will also be useful to researchers who want to combine stated preference data sets while controlling for scale differences. We illustrate our approach using the data from a discrete choice experiment study of a biodiversity conservation program and find that the mean of individual-specific scale parameters and its variance in the sample is sensitive to the information set provided to the respondents.

[1]  P. Nelson.  Information and Consumer Behavior , 1970, Journal of Political Economy.

[2]  John M. Rose,et al.  Combining RP and SP data: biases in using the nested logit ‘trick’: contrasts with flexible mixed logit incorporating panel and scale effects , 2008 .

[3]  Stephen M. Redpath,et al.  Using Decision Modeling with Stakeholders to Reduce Human–Wildlife Conflict: a Raptor–Grouse Case Study , 2004 .

[4]  Dirk Bergemann,et al.  Dynamic Pricing of New Experience Goods , 2006, Journal of Political Economy.

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

[6]  M. Christie,et al.  Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments , 2009 .

[7]  A. Daly,et al.  Handbook of Choice Modelling , 2014 .

[8]  D. McFadden.  The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Empirical Evidence , 1976 .

[9]  Erik Meijer,et al.  Measuring Welfare Effects in Models with Random Coefficients , 2000 .

[10]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Estimation of travel demand models from multiple data sources , 1990 .

[11]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation , 2014 .

[12]  J. Gibbons,et al.  The effect of individual 'ability to choose' (scale heterogeneity) on the valuation of environmental goods , 2011 .

[13]  N. Hanley,et al.  Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine? , 2006 .

[14]  Owen R. Phillips,et al.  A Bayesian examination of information and uncertainty in contingent valuation , 2007 .

[15]  Jacob LaRiviere,et al.  The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods , 2015 .

[16]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  The Effect of Attribute Variation on Consumer Choice Consistency , 1999 .

[17]  S. Redpath,et al.  Hen harriers and red grouse: science, politics and human–wildlife conflict , 2008 .

[18]  Daniel J. Phaneuf,et al.  Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: A combined revealed and stated preference approach , 2008 .

[19]  Alan H. Fielding,et al.  Factors constraining the distribution of Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos in Scotland , 2007 .

[20]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Economic values of species management options in human-wildlife conflicts: Hen Harriers in Scotland. , 2010 .

[21]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Information, uncertainty, and contingent valuation , 1999 .

[22]  John M. Rose,et al.  Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models? , 2012 .

[23]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[24]  M. Bierlaire,et al.  Discrete choice models with multiplicative error terms , 2009 .

[25]  John M. Rose,et al.  Design Efficiency for Non-Market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure it, What to Report and Why , 2008 .

[26]  R. Green,et al.  The effects of illegal killing and destruction of nests by humans on the population dynamics of the hen harrier Circus cyaneus in Scotland , 1997 .

[27]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[28]  Linda Court Salisbury,et al.  Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[29]  R. Rae,et al.  Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos: land use and food in northeast Scotland , 2008 .

[30]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[31]  N. Hanley,et al.  The Effects of Experience on Preference Uncertainty: Theory and Empirics for Public and Quasi-Public Environmental Goods , 2013 .

[32]  E. C. Fieller.  THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE INDEX IN A NORMAL BIVARIATE POPULATION , 1932 .

[33]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .

[34]  Frank Lupi,et al.  Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters , 2010 .

[35]  N. Hanley,et al.  What is the Causal Effect of Information and Learning about a Public Good on Willingness to Pay , 2014 .

[36]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[37]  Zsolt Sándor,et al.  Quasi-random simulation of discrete choice models , 2004 .

[38]  William H. Greene,et al.  Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity , 2014, Land Economics.

[39]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice , 2001 .

[40]  C. Galbraith,et al.  Species management: challenges and solutions for the 21st century. , 2010 .

[41]  A. Daly,et al.  Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data , 1994 .

[42]  Nick Hanley,et al.  The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good , 2014 .

[43]  R. Thaler.  Toward a positive theory of consumer choice , 1980 .

[44]  森川 高行,et al.  Incorporating stated preference data in travel demand analysis , 1989 .

[45]  Robert Kohn,et al.  Dissecting the Random Component of Utility , 2002 .

[46]  Søren Bøye Olsen,et al.  Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods , 2009 .

[47]  M. Ben-Akiva,et al.  Combining revealed and stated preferences data , 1994 .

[48]  D. Bergemann,et al.  Learning and Strategic Pricing , 1996 .

[49]  Junyi Shen.  Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data , 2009 .

[50]  Denzil G. Fiebig,et al.  The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[51]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[52]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Combining sources of preference data , 1998 .

[53]  William S. Breffle,et al.  Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs , 2002, Land Economics.

[54]  R. Carson,et al.  Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone , 1994 .

[55]  P. Rothery,et al.  Raptor predation and population limitation in red grouse , 2000 .

[56]  Eric Ruto,et al.  Valuing Indigenous Cattle Breeds in Kenya: An Empirical Comparison of Stated and Revealed Preference Value Estimates , 2001 .

[57]  A. Alberini,et al.  Information and Willingness to Pay in a Contingent Valuation Study: The Value of S. Erasmo in the Lagoon of Venice , 2004 .

[58]  I. Newton,et al.  Population Limitation in Birds , 1998 .

[59]  A. Daly,et al.  MODELS USING MIXED STATED-PREFERENCE AND REVEALED-PREFERENCE INFORMATION. , 1991 .

[60]  C. Manski.  The structure of random utility models , 1977 .

[61]  Donald M. Waldman,et al.  (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jae.984 LEARNING AND FATIGUE DURING CHOICE EXPERIMENTS: A COMPARISON OF ONLINE AND MAIL SURVEY MODES , 2022 .

[62]  E. Haltia.  Contingent valuation and choice experiment of citizens' willingness to pay for forest conservation in southern Finland , 2015 .

[63]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Good News and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications , 1981 .

[64]  P. Zarembka.  Frontiers in econometrics , 1973 .

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

[66]  D. Hensher,et al.  Using stated response choice data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models , 1993 .

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

[68]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments , 2010 .