The random expenditure function approach to welfare in RUM: The case of hazardous waste clean-up

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 58-74

  Chattopadhyay, Sudip ^a  

^a SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Compensating variation; Conjoint choice experimental design; Hazardous waste clean up; Housing choice; Random expenditure function; Random utility model; Representative CV

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTS; FUNCTIONS; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; HOUSING; PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION; STATISTICS;

COMPENSATING VARIATION; CONJOINT CHOICE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEAN-UP; RANDOM EXPENDITURE FUNCTION; RANDOM UTILITY MODEL; REPRESENTATIVE CV;

RANDOM PROCESSES;

CLEANUP; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPENDITURE; HAZARDOUS WASTE; METHODOLOGY; MODELING; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 58049097626     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., and Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 3 (1994) 271-292
2. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J., and Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 1 (1997) 65-84
3. Alberini, A., Longo, A., Tonin, S., Trombetta, F., Turvani, M., 2003. The Role of Liability Regulation and Economic Incentives in Brownfield Remediation and Redevelopment: Evidence from Survey of Developers. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Working Papers: 2003.7.
4. Bockstael N.E., McConnell K.E., and Strand I. Recreation. In: Braden J.B., and Kolstad C.D. (Eds). Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality (1991), North Holland, New York
5. Boyle K.J., Holmes T.P., Teisl M.F., and Roe B. A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 2 (2001) 441-454
6. Chattopadhyay S., Braden J.B., and Patunru A. Benefits of hazardous waste cleanup: new evidence from survey- and market-based property value approaches. Contemporary Economic Policy 23 3 (2005) 357-375
7. Dagsvik J.K., and Karlstrom A. Compensating Variation and Hicksian Choice Probabilities in Random Utility Models that are Nonlinear in Income. Review of Economics Studies 72 1 (2005) 57-76
8. DeShazo J.R., and Fermo G. Designing choice sets for state preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 1 (2002) 123-143
9. Earnhart D. Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Economics 77 1 (2001) 12-29
10. Final Report, 2003, An Economic Valuation of Contaminated Sediment Remediation in Waukegan Harbor, Illinois. Prepared by Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC.
11. Hanemann W.M. Welfare analysis in discrete choice models. In: Herriges J.A., and Kling C.L. (Eds). Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice (1999), Edward Elgar Publishers 33-64
12. Herriges J.A., and Kling C.L. Nonlinear income effects in random utility models. The Review of Economics and Statistics 81 1 (1999) 62-72
13. Johnston R.J., Swallow S.K., Tyrrell T.J., and Bauer D.M. Rural amenity values and length of residency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85 4 (2003) 1000-1015
14. Karlstrom, A. 1998. Hicksian Welfare Measure in a Nonlinear Random Utility Framework. Working Paper, presented at the First KFB Conference in Transportation Economics, Borlange, Sweden, June 1998, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
15. Karlstrom, A., Morey, E.R., 2003. Calculating the Exact Compensating Variation in Logit and Nested-Logit Models with Income Effects: Theory, Intuition, Implementation, and Application. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=562802.
16. Louviere J.J. Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis (1988), Sage, Newbury Park, CA
17. Louviere J.J., Fox M., and Moore W. Cross-task validity comparisons of stated preference choice models. Marketing Letters 4 3 (1993) 205-213
18. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
19. MacKinnon J., White H., and Davidson R. Tests for model specification in the presence of alternative hypothesis: some further results. Journal of Econometrics 21 1 (1983) 53-70
20. McFadden D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Manski C.F., and McFadden D. (Eds). Structural Analysis of Discrete Data (1981), MIT Press, London
21. McFadden D. Computing willingness-to-pay in random utility models. In: Moore J., Riezman R., and Melvin J. (Eds). Trade, Theory, and Econometric: Essays in Honor of John Chipman (1999), Routledge, London
22. Morey E.R., Rowe R., and Watson M. A repeated nested logit model of atlantic salmon fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75 4 (1993) 578-592
23. Morey E.R. Two RUMs uncloacked: nested-logit models of site choice and nested-logit models of participation and site choice. In: Herriges J.A., and Kling C.L. (Eds). Valuing Recreation and the Environment (1999), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK 65-120
24. Swait J., and Louviere J. The role of scale parameter in the estimation and the use of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30 3 (1993) 305-314