Accounting for outside options in discrete choice models: An application to commercial fishing effort

Discrete choice models often feature a generic outside option that combines all alternatives other than those of particular interest to the researcher, which allows overall demand for the alternatives of interest to be captured. I demonstrate that combining diverse alternatives into a single outside option can result in distorted parameter estimates and misleading predictions. To evaluate the practical importance of how outside options are treated, I use data on the Florida spiny lobster and stone crab fisheries to compare a discrete choice model that explicitly accounts for individuals' ability to target both species with one that includes stone crab alternatives in the generic outside option. I find that parameter estimates and predictions for the lobster fishery depend heavily upon whether stone crab alternatives are explicitly accounted for. In addition, I conduct a series of Monte Carlo experiments, which demonstrate that the sign and magnitude of differences in predictions between models are complex functions of the characteristics of the empirical environment. Together, these results highlight the importance of carefully considering the composition of outside options when estimating discrete choice models and making predictions based on the estimates.

[1]  J. Swait,et al.  The effect of choice set misspecification on welfare measures in random utility models , 2015 .

[2]  A. Haynie,et al.  What are we protecting? Fisher behavior and the unintended consequences of spatial closures as a fishery management tool. , 2012, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[3]  Eli P. Fenichel,et al.  Anticipating adaptation: a mechanistic approach for linking policy and stock status to recreational angler behavior , 2013 .

[4]  Steven T. Berry,et al.  Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium , 1995 .

[5]  J. Sutinen,et al.  Location choice in New England trawl fisheries: old habits die hard. , 2000 .

[6]  Robert L. Hicks,et al.  The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models , 2000 .

[7]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  Modelling the Choice of Residential Location , 1977 .

[8]  H. Spencer Banzhaf,et al.  Meta-analysis in model implementation: choice sets and the valuation of air quality improvements , 2007 .

[9]  Robert McMillan,et al.  A Dynamic Model of Demand for Houses and Neighborhoods , 2011 .

[10]  Mary Jo Kealy,et al.  Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation , 1992 .

[11]  I. Strand,et al.  Location Choice of Commercial Fishermen with Heterogeneous Risk Preferences , 2000 .

[12]  Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al.  Influence of Choice Set Considerations in Modeling the Benefits From Improved Water Quality , 1995 .

[13]  James E. Wilen,et al.  An Examination of Fishing Location Choice in the Pink Shrimp Fishery , 1986, Marine Resource Economics.

[14]  Kenneth A. Small,et al.  EFFICIENT ESTIMATION OF NESTED LOGIT MODELS , 1985 .

[15]  James J. Opaluch,et al.  Discrete modelling of supply response under uncertainty: The case of the fishery , 1983 .

[16]  W. Alexander,et al.  A Bioeconomic Analysis of Marine Reserves for Paua (Abalone) Management at Stewart Island, New Zealand , 2008 .

[17]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Statistical Properties of Consideration Sets , 2006 .

[18]  J. Wilen,et al.  Voluntary Cooperation in the Commons? Evaluating the Sea State Program with Reduced Form and Structural Models , 2010, Land Economics.

[19]  Incomplete Demand Systems, Corner Solutions, and Welfare Measurement , 2010 .

[20]  George R. Parsons,et al.  Familiar and Favorite Sites in a Random Utility Model of Beach Recreation , 1999, Marine Resource Economics.

[21]  Frank Lupi,et al.  The Effect of Modeling Substitute Activities on Recreational Benefit Estimates , 1998, Marine Resource Economics.

[22]  Larry G. Epstein Integrability of Incomplete Systems of Demand Functions , 1982 .

[23]  J. Swait,et al.  Choice set formation for outdoor destinations: The role of motivations and preference discrimination in site selection for the management of public expenditures on protected areas , 2017 .

[24]  Daniel K. Lew,et al.  Valuing a Beach Day with a Repeated Nested Logit Model of Participation, Site Choice, and Stochastic Time Value , 2008, Marine Resource Economics.

[25]  Edward R. Morey,et al.  Measurement error in recreation demand models: the joint estimation of participation, site choice, and site characteristics. , 1998 .

[26]  J. Herriges,et al.  Non-Price Equilibria for Non-Marketed Goods , 2007 .

[27]  Martin D. Smith,et al.  Econometric Modeling of Fisheries with Complex Life Histories: Avoiding Biological Management Failures , 2007 .

[28]  K. Schnier,et al.  Common property, information, and cooperation: Commercial fishing in the Bering Sea , 2009 .

[29]  A. Haynie,et al.  An expected profit model for monetizing fishing location choices , 2010 .

[30]  Robert L. Hicks,et al.  The Cost of Sea Turtle Preservation: The Case of Hawaii's Pelagic Longliners , 2000 .

[31]  Martin D. Smith Two Econometric Approaches for Predicting the Spatial Behavior of Renewable Resource Harvesters , 2002, Land Economics.

[32]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models , 2001 .

[33]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources , 1995 .

[34]  K. Schnier,et al.  Eco-labeling and dolphin avoidance: A dynamic model of tuna fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific , 2008 .

[35]  V. Réquillart,et al.  Does the EU sugar policy reform increase added sugar consumption? An empirical evidence on the soft drink market. , 2011, Health economics.

[36]  Dynamic Random Utility Modeling: A Monte Carlo Analysis , 2006 .

[37]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  The Dual Structure of Incomplete Demand Systems , 1989 .

[38]  George R. Parsons,et al.  Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation , 1992 .

[39]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  A Nested Logit Model of Energy Conservation Activity by Owners of Existing Single Family Dwellings , 1985 .

[40]  Martin D. Smith,et al.  Economic impacts of marine reserves: the importance of spatial behavior , 2003 .

[41]  Roger H. von Haefen,et al.  Incorporating Observed Choice into the Construction of Welfare Measures from Random Utility Models , 2013 .

[42]  George R. Parsons,et al.  Spatial boundaries and choice set definition in a random utility model of recreation demand. , 1998 .

[43]  Peter Feather,et al.  Sampling and Aggregation Issues in Random Utility Model Estimation , 1994 .

[44]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Narrow choice sets in a random utility model of recreation demand. , 2000 .

[45]  Cristian Huse,et al.  The Market Impact and the Cost of Environmental Policy: Evidence from the Swedish Green Car Rebate , 2014 .

[46]  Holger Sieg,et al.  Estimating a model of excess demand for public housing , 2013 .

[47]  Robert L. Hicks,et al.  Spatial regulations and endogenous consideration sets in fisheries , 2010 .

[48]  von Haefen,et al.  A COMPLETE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LINEAR, LOG-LINEAR, AND SEMI-LOG INCOMPLETE DEMAND SYSTEM MODELS , 2002 .

[49]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneity in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand , 1997 .

[50]  Young-Sook Eom,et al.  Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information , 2006 .

[51]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  A latent segmentation approach to a Kuhn–Tucker model: An application to recreation demand , 2010 .

[52]  A. Hole,et al.  Tests for the consistency of three-level nested logit models with utility maximization , 2004 .

[53]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  Testing The Consistency of Nested Logit Models with Utility Maximization , 1996 .

[54]  Frank Lupi,et al.  Using Partial Site Aggregation to Reduce Bias in Random Utility Travel Cost Models , 1997 .

[55]  Heterogeneous Response to Marine Reserve Formation: A Sorting Model approach , 2011 .

[56]  James N. Sanchirico,et al.  The Economics of Spatial-Dynamic Processes: Applications to Renewable Resources , 2007 .

[57]  Edward R. Morey,et al.  A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing , 1993 .

[58]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of the Consistency of Nested Logit Models with Utility Maximization , 1995 .

[59]  Martin D. Smith State dependence and heterogeneity in fishing location choice , 2005 .

[60]  G. Gowrisankaran,et al.  Quality and employers' choice of health plans. , 2004, Journal of health economics.

[61]  Roger H. von Haefen,et al.  Latent Consideration Sets and Continuous Demand Systems , 2008 .

[62]  H. Allcott,et al.  Gasoline Prices, Fuel Economy, and the Energy Paradox , 2012, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[63]  Matthew Grennan Price Discrimination and Bargaining: Empirical Evidence from Medical Devices , 2012 .

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

[65]  J. Wilen,et al.  Dissecting the tragedy: A spatial model of behavior in the commons , 2011 .

[66]  J. Downing,et al.  Valuing Water Quality as a Function of Water Quality Measures , 2008 .

[67]  J. Horowitz,et al.  What is the role of consideration sets in choice modeling , 1995 .

[68]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .