Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 21-36

  Layton, David F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; METHODOLOGY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 0033940688     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1999.1104     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econom. Management. 26:1994;271-292.
2. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J., Williams M. Perception versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J. Environ. Econom. Management. 32:1997;65-84.
3. Aitchison J., Brown J. A. C. The Lognormal Distribution. 1957;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Beggs S., Cardell S., Hausman J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J. Econometrics. 16:1981;1-19.
5. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S. R. Discrete Choice Analysis. 1985;MIT Press, Cambridge.
6. Ben-Akiva M., Morikawa T., Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J. Bus. Res. 24:1992;149-164.
7. Bloom D. E., Cavanagh C. L. An analysis of the selection of arbitrators. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76:1986;408-422.
8. Borsch-Supan A., Hajivassiliou V. A. Smooth unbiased multivariate probability simulators for maximum likelihood estimation of limited dependent variable models. J. Econometrics. 58:1993;347-368.
9. G. Brown, D. Layton, and, J. Lazo, Valuing habitat and endangered species, Discussion Paper 94-1, University of Washington, 1994.
10. Brownstone D., Train K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J. Econometrics. 89:1999;109-129.
11. Bunch D. S., Bradley M., Golob T. F., Kitamura R., Occhiuzzo G. P. Demand for clean-fuel vehicles in California: A discrete choice stated preference pilot project. Transportation Res. A. 27:1993;237-253.
12. Chapman R. G., Staelin R. Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J. Marketing Res. 19:1982;288-301.
13. Chen H. Z., Cosslett S. R. Environmental quality preference and benefit estimation in multinomial probit models: A simulation approach. Amer. J. Agri. Econom. 80:1998;512-520.
14. Efron B., Tibshirani R. J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. 1993;Chapman & Hall, New York.
15. Geweke J. Efficient simulation from the multivariate normal and Student-t distributions subject to linear constraints. Keramidas E. M. Computing Science and Statistics: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Symposium on the Interface. 1991;571-578.
16. Hartman R. S., Doane M. J., Woo C. K. Consumer rationality and the status quo. Quart. J. Econom. 106:1991;141-162.
17. Hausman J. A., Ruud P. A. Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. J. Econometrics. 34:1987;83-104.
18. Hausman J. A., Wise D. A. A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: Discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous preferences. Econometrica. 46:1978;403-426.
19. Keane M. P. A computationally practical simulation estimator for panel data. Econometrica. 62:1994;95-116.
20. Krinsky I., Robb A. L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econom. Statist. 68:1986;715-719.
21. Lareau T. J., Rae D. A. Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: An application of contingent ranking technique. So. Econom. J. 55:1989;728-742.
22. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka P. Frontiers in Econometrics. 1973;Academic Press, New York.
23. Odeck J. Ranking of regional road investment in Norway: Does socioeconomic analysis matter? Transportation. 23:1996;123-140.
24. Pollak R. A., Wales T. J. The likelihood dominance criterion: A new approach to model selection. J. Econometrics. 47:1991;227-242.
25. Porter R. H., Zona J. D. Detection of bid rigging in procurement auctions. J. Polit. Econom. 101:1993;518-538.
26. Rae D. E. The value to visitors of improving visibility at Mesa Verde and Great Smoky National Parks. Rowe R. D., Chestnut L. G. Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks. 1983;Westview Press, Boulder.
27. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econom. Statist. 80:1998;647-657.
28. Schulze W., McClelland G., Balistreri E., Boyce R., Doane M., Hurd B., Simenauer R. An evaluation of public preferences for Superfund site cleanup, volume 2: Pilot study. 1994;US EPA.
29. W. Schulze, G. McClelland, M. Doane, E. Balistreri, R. Boyce, B. Hurd, and, R. Simenauer, An analysis of stated preferences for superfund site cleanup, unpublished manuscript, 1995.
30. Smith V. K., Desvouges W. H. Measuring Water Quality Benefits. 1986;Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston.
31. Stone M. Cross-validation choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. Royal Statist. Soc. B. 36:1974;111-147.
32. Thomas L. A. Brand capital and incumbent firms' positions in evolving markets. Rev. Econom. Statist. 77:1995;522-534.
33. Thomas L. G. Revealed bureaucratic preference: Priorities of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. RAND J. Econom. 19:1988;102-113.
34. Train K. E. Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand. 1986;MIT Press, Cambridge.
35. Train K. E. Recreation demand models with taste variation over people. Land Econom. 74:1998;230-239.