Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation

Ecological Economics

Volumn 68, Issue 1-2, 2008, Pages 536-546

  Morey, Edward ^a   Thiene, Mara ^b   De Salvo, Maria ^c   Signorello, Giovanni ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CATANIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Heterogeneity; Landscape; Latent class model; Preference

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE PROTECTION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PROBABILITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; ITALY; SICILY; SOUTHERN EUROPE;

EID: 53649106165     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.015     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Akaiki H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19 (1974) 716-723
2. Aldrich G., Grimsrud K., Thacher J., and Kotchen M. Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?. Environmental and Resource Economics 374 (2007) 757-775
3. Alvarez-Farizo B., and Hanley N. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms: an example from Spain. Energy Policy 30 (2002) 107-116
4. Arriaza M., Cañas-Ortega J., Cañas-Madueño J., and Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (2004) 115-125
5. Bartholomew D., and Knott M. Latent Class Models and Factor Analysis. Second ed. (1999), Oxford University Press Inc., New York
6. Bastian C.T., McLeod D.M., Germino M.G., Reiners W.A., and Blasko B. Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using Geographic Information Systems data. Ecological Economics 40 (2002) 337-349
7. Bonnieux F., and Le Goffe P. Valuing the benefits of landscape restoration: a case study of the Cotentin in lower-Normandy, France. Journal of Environmental Management 50 (1997) 321-333
8. Boxall P., and Adamowicz W. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 234 (2002) 421-446
9. Bozdogan H. Model selection and Akaikes Information criterion AIC: the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 52 (1987) 345-370
10. Breffle W., Morey E., and Thacher J. Combining attitudinal and choice data to improve estimates of preferences and preference heterogeneity: a FIML, discrete-choice, latent-class model. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Colorado (2008)
11. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random effects models. Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (2007) 467-483
12. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., and Scarpa R. Using mixed logit models to derive individual specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland. In: Koundouri P., and Birol E. (Eds). Choice Experiments Informing European Environmental Policy (2006), Edward Elgar Publisher
13. Clogg C., and Goodman L. Latent structure analysis of a set of multidimensional contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79 388 (1984) 762-771
14. Daniel T. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54 (2001) 267-281
15. De Menezes L., and Bartholomew D. New developments in latent structure analysis applied to social attitudes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 1592 (1996) 213-224
16. Eid M., Langeheine R., and Diener E. Comparing typological structures across cultures by multigroup latent class analysis - a primer. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 342 (2003) 195-210
17. Ek, E., 2002. Valuing the environmental impact of wind power: a choice experiment approach. PhD thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Department of Business Administration and Social Science.
18. Fanariotu I., and Skuras D. The contribution of scenic beauty indicators in estimating environmental welfare measures: a case study. Social Indicators Research 65 (2004) 145-165
19. Fleischer A., and Tsur Y. Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics 27 (2000) 385-398
20. Geoghegan J., Wainger L., and Bockstael N. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological Economics 23 (1997) 251-264
21. Gonzàlez M., and Leòn C. Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape. Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 159-169
22. Hanley N., Wright R., and Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues. current experience and future prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 113-4 (1998) 413-428
23. Hurvich M., and Tsai C. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 762 (1989) 297-307
24. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 (1995) 169-182
25. Magidson J., and Vermunt J. Latent class modelling as a probabilistic extension of k-means Clustering. Quirk's Marketing Research Review 20 (2002) 77-80
26. Manning R., and Freimund W. Use of visual research methods to measure standards of quality for parks and outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 4 (2004) 557-579
27. McCutcheon A. Sexual morality, pro-life values, and attitudes toward abortion - a simultaneous latent structure analysis for 1978-1983. Sociological Methods and Research 162 (1987) 256-275
28. McCutcheon A., and Nawojcyzk M. Making the break - popular sentiment toward legalized abortion among American and Polish Catholic laities. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 73 (1995) 232-252
29. McVittie A., Moran D., Allcroft D., and Elston D. Beauty, beast and biodiversity: what does the public want from agriculture?. Paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Society, 78th Annual Conference, 2-4 April, Imperial College, South Kensington, London, England (2004)
30. Menzel S., and Scarpa R. Protection motivation theory and contingent valuation: perceived realism, threat, and WTP estimates for biodiversity protection. FEEM working paper 26 (2005)
31. Morey E., Thacher J., and Breffle W. Using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: a latent-class model. Environmental and Resource Economics 341 (2006) 91-115
32. Provencher B., Baerenklau K., and Bishop R. A finite mixture logit model of recreational angling with serially correlated random utility. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 844 (2002) 1066-1075
33. Pruckner G.J. Agricultural landscape cultivation in Austria: an application of the CVM. European Review of Agricultural Economics 22 (1995) 173-190
34. Sayadi S., Gonzalez R., Calatrava M.C., and Requena J. Estimating relative value of agrarian landscape by conjoint analysis: the case of the Alpujarras South-eastern Spain. Paper Presented at the 9th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 25-27 June, Oslo, Norway (2000)
35. Scarpa R., and Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preference. Land Economics 853 (2005) 426-444
36. Scarpa R., Drucker A., Anderson S., Ferraes-Ehuan N., Risopatron V.G.R., and Rubio-Leonel O. Valuing animal genetic resources in peasant economies: the case of the BoxKeken creole pig in Yucatan. Ecological Economics 453 (2003) 427-443
37. Scarpa R., Willis K.G., and Acutt M. Individual-specific welfare measures for public goods: a latent class approach to residential customers of Yorkshire Water. In: Koundouri P. (Ed). Econometrics Informing Natural Resource Management (2005), Edward Elgar Publisher
38. Scarpa R., Campbell D., and Hutchinson W.G. Benefits estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment study. Land Economics 83 4 (2007) 617-634 November
39. Thacher J., Morey E., and Craighead W.E. Using patient characteristics and attitudinal data to identify treatment preference groups: a latent-class model. Depression and Anxiety 212 (2005) 47-54
40. Titterington D., Smith A., and Makov U. Statistical analysis of finite mixture distribution. First edn (1985), John Wiley and Sons, New York
41. Tyrvainen L. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 62 (2001) 75-92
42. Vermunt, J. and Magidson, J., 2005. Latent GOLD 4.0 Users Guide. Belmont, Massachusetts:Statistical Innovations Inc.
43. Wedel M., and Kamakura W. Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Second edn (2000), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
44. Willis K.G., Garrod G.D., and Saunders C.M. Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: a contingent valuation assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 44 (1995) 105-125
45. Yamaguchi K. Multinomial logit latent-class regression models: an analysis of the predictors of gender-role attitudes among Japanese women. American Journal of Sociology 1056 (2000) 1702-1740