A latent segmentation approach to a Kuhn-Tucker model: An application to recreation demand

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 209-220

  Kuriyama, Koichi ^a   Michael Hanemann, W ^b   Hilger, James R ^c  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Beach recreation; Demand system; EM algorithms; Welfare analysis

Indexed keywords

BEACH RECREATIONS; DATA SETS; DEMAND SYSTEM; EM ALGORITHMS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; EXPECTATION-MAXIMIZATION ALGORITHMS; KUHN-TUCKER; LIKELIHOOD TECHNIQUE; MANAGEMENT POLICY; SELECTION DECISIONS; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK; UTILITY FUNCTIONS; WELFARE ANALYSIS; WELFARE IMPACTS;

BEACHES; BLIND SOURCE SEPARATION; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; SITE SELECTION;

MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONS;

ALGORITHM; BEACH NOURISHMENT; DATA SET; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ANALYSIS; MODEL TEST; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARAMETERIZATION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; RECREATIONAL FACILITY; RECREATIONAL POLICY; SITE SELECTION; THEORETICAL STUDY;

CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77957749871     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Aitkin M., Aitkin I. A hybrid EM/Gauss-Newton algorithm for maximum likelihood in mixture distributions. Statist. Computing 1996, 6:127-130.
2. Andrews R., Currim I. Retention of latent segments in regression-based marketing models. Int. J. Res. Marketing 2003, 20:315-321.
3. Bhat C.R. Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp. Res.: Part B: Methodological 2001, 35:677-693.
4. Bhat C.R. A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions. Transp. Res.: Part B: Methodological 2005, 39:679-707.
5. Bockstael N., Hanemann W.M., Strand I.E. Measuring the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Using Recreation Demand Models 1986, vol. 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington, DC.
6. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ. Resource Econ. 2002, 23:421-446.
7. Boyles R. On the convergence of the EM algorithm. J. Roy. Statistical Society B 1983, 45:47-50.
8. California EPA, California Beach Closure Report 2000, Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board, California EPA, July 2001.
9. Dempster A., Laird N., Rubin D. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. Roy. Statistical Society B 1977, 39:1-38.
10. W.M. Hanemann, A theoretical and empirical study of the recreation benefits from improving water quality in the boston area, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Economics, Harvard University, 1978.
11. W.M. Hanemann, L. Pendleton, C. Mohn, J. Hilger, K. Kuriyama, D. Layton, F. Vasquez, Using revealed preference models to estimate the effect of coastal water quality on beach choice in Southern California, Beach Valuation Project, NOAA/CORE, September 17, 2004.
12. Herriges J.A., Kling C.L., Phaneuf D.J. Corner solution models of recreation demand: a comparison of competing frameworks. Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice 1999, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. J.A. Herriges, C.L. Kling (Eds.).
13. Herriges J.A., Kling C.L., Phaneuf D.J. What's the use? Welfare estimates from revealed preference models when weak complementarity doesn't hold. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2004, 47:55-70.
14. J.Hilger, M. Hanemann, Heterogeneous preferences for water quality: a finite mixture model of beach recreation in Southern California, California Sea Grant College Program, Research Completion Reports, University of California, San Diego, 2006.
15. Hynes S., Hanley N., Scarpa R. Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 2008, 90:1011-1027.
16. Kamakura W., Russell G. A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J. Marketing Res. 1989, 26:379-390.
17. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Statist. 1986, 68:715-719.
18. Levine R., Casella G. Implementation of the Monte Carlo EM algorithm. J. Computational Graph. Statist. 2001, 10:422-439.
19. Phaneuf D.J., Smith V.K. Recreation demand models. Handbook of Environmental Economics 2005, vol. 2. North-Holland.
20. Phaneuf D.J., Kling C.L., Herriges J.A. Estimation and welfare calculations in a generalized corner solution model with an application to recreation demand. Rev. Econ. Statist. 2000, 82:83-92.
21. Provencher B., Baerenklau K.A., Bishop R.C. A finite mixture logit model of recreational angling with serially correlated random utility. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 2002, 84:1066-1075.
22. Ruud P. Extensions of estimation methods using the EM algorithm. J. Econometrics 1991, 49:305-341.
23. Scarpa R., Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock-climbing in the North-Eastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of participation. Land Econ. 2005, 81:426-444.
24. Shonkwiler J.S., Shaw W.D. A finite mixture approach to analyzing income effects in random utility models. The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation 2003, 268-278. Edward Elgar. N.D. Hanley (Ed.).
25. Swait J.R. A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data. J. Retailing Cons. Services 1994, 1:77-89.
26. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste variation. Land Econ. 1998, 74:230-239.
27. Train K. EM algorithms for nonparametric estimation of mixing distributions. J. Choice Modeling 2008, 1:40-69.
28. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York. second ed.
29. von Haefen R.H., Phaneuf D.J. Estimating preferences for outdoor recreation: a comparison of continuous and count data demand system frameworks. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2003, 45:612-630.
30. von Haefen R.H. Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2003, 45:145-165.
31. von Haefen R.H., Phaneuf D.J., Parsons G.R. Estimation and welfare analysis with large demand systems. J. Bus. Econ. Statist. 2004, 22:194-205.
32. von Haefen R.H., Phaneuf D.J. Kuhn-Tucker demand system approaches to non-market valuation. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, Springer, New York. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
33. von Haefen R.H. Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2007, 54:15-31.
34. Wales T.J., Woodland A. Estimation of consumer demand systems with binding non-negativity constraints. J. Econometrics 1983, 21:263-285.
35. Weeks D., Lange K. Trials, tribulations, and triumphs of the EM algorithm in pedigree analysis. J. Mathematics Appl. Medicine Biology 1989, 6:209-232.
36. Wu C. On the convergence properties of the EM algorithm. Ann. Statist. 1983, 11:95-103.