Meta-analysis in model implementation: Choice sets and the valuation of air quality improvements

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1013-1031

  Banzhaf, H Spencer ^a   Smith, V Kerry ^b  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35648962968     PISSN: 08837252     EISSN: 10991255     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jae.977     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Banzhaf HS. 2002. Quality adjustment for spatially-delineated public goods: theory and application to cost-of-living indices in LA. Discussion Paper 02-10, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
2. Bayer P, McMillan R, Rueben K. 2004. An equilibrium model of sorting in an urban housing market. NBER Working Paper No. 10865. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
3. Bayer P, Keohane N, Timmins C. 2005. Migration and hedonic valuation: the case of air quality. Mimeo, Duke University: Durham, NC.
4. Ben-Akiva M, Boceara B. 1995. Discrete choice models with latent choice sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12: 9-24.
5. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
6. Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A. 1995. Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica 63: 841-890.
7. Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A. 2004. Differentiated products demand systems from a combination of micro and macro data: the new car market. Journal of Political Economy 112(1): 68-104.
8. Brock WA, Durlauf SN. 2001. Discrete choice with social interactions. Review of Economic Studies 68: 235-260.
9. Brock WA, Durlauf SN. 2002. A multinomial choice model of neighborhood effects. American Economic Review 92(2): 298-303.
10. California Association of Realtors. 2000. Median time on market for single-family homes, condos in California falls in January 1997.http://www.car. org/newsstand/news/march97-3.html [12 June 2007].
11. Chattopadhyay S. 2000. The effectiveness of McFaddens's nested logit model in valuing amenity improvements. Regional Science and Urban Economics 30: 23-43.
12. Cropper ML, Deck L, Kishor N, McConnell KE. 1993. Valuing product attributes using single market data: a comparison of hedonic and discrete choice approaches. Review of Economics and Statistics 75: 225-232.
13. Ellison G. 2002. The slowdown in the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy 110: 947-993.
14. Haab TC, Hicks RL. 1997. Accounting for choice set endogeneity in random utility models of recreation demand. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34: 127-147.
15. Hanemann WM. 1978. A methodological and empirical study of the recreation benefits from water quality improvement. PhD thesis, Harvard University.
16. Herriges JA, Kling C. 1999. Nonlinear income effects in random utility models. Review of Economics and Statistics 81: 62-72.
17. Horowitz JL, Louviere JJ. 1995. What is the role of consideration sets in choice modeling? International Journal of Research in Marketing 12: 39-54.
18. Kaoru Y, Smith VK. 1990. 'Black mayonnaise' and marine recreation: methodological issues in valuing cleanup. RFF Discussion Paper QE91-02, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
19. Learner EE. 1978. Specification Searches: Ad Hoc Inference with Non-Experimental Data. Wiley: New York.
20. Learner EE. 1983. Let's take the con out of econometrics. American Economic Review 73: 31-43.
21. Manski C. 1977. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8: 229-54.
22. McFadden D. 1978. Modeling the choice of residential location. In Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models, Karlqvist A, Lundqvist L, Snickars F, Weibull JW (eds). North-Holland: New York; 75-96.
23. McFadden D. 1999. Computing willingness-to-pay in random utility models. In Theory and Econometrics: Essays in Honour of John S. Chipman, Moore J, Riezman R, Melvin J (eds). Routledge: London; 253-274.
24. Nevo A. 2003. New products, quality changes and welfare measures computed from estimated demand systems. Review of Economics and Statistics 85: 266-275.
25. Newberger H. 1995. Source of differences in information used by black and white housing seekers. Urban Studies 32: 445-470.
26. Palmquist RB. 2005. Property value models. In Handbook of Environmental Economics, Vol. 2, Maler K-G, Vincent J (eds). North-Holland: Amsterdam; 763-819.
27. Palmquist RB, Israngkura A. 1999. Valuing air quality with hedonic and discrete choice models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 1128-1133.
28. Parsons GR, Hauber AB. 1998. Spatial boundaries and choice set definition in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Economics 74: 32-48.
29. Parsons GR, Kealy MJ. 1992. Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Economics 68: 93-106.
30. Parsons GR, Plantinga AJ, Boyle KJ. 2000. Narrow choice sets in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Economics 76: 86-99.
31. Peters T, Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC. 1995. Influence of choice set considerations in modeling the benefits from improved water quality. Water Resources Research 31: 1781-1787.
32. Petrin A. 2002. Quantifying the benefits of new products: the case of the minivan. Journal of Political Economy 110(4): 705-729.
33. Poterba JM. 1992. Taxation and housing: old questions, new answers. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 88(2): 237-242.
34. Quigley JM. 1985. Consumer choice of dwelling, neighborhood, and public services. Regional Science and Urban Economics 15(1): 1-23.
35. Train KE. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
36. Train KE, McFadden D, Ben-Akiva M. 1987. The demand for local telephone service: a fully discrete model of residential calling patterns and service choice. Rand Journal of Economics 18: 109-123.
37. von Haefen R. 2005. Latent consideration sets and continuous demand system models. Mimeo, North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC.