Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 477-493

  Bujosa, Angel ^a   Riera, Antoni ^a   Hicks, Robert L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITAT DE LES ILLES BALEARS   (Spain)

^b William and Mary   (United States)

Author keywords

Forests; Latent class model; Random parameter model; Recreation demand; Travel cost method

Indexed keywords

FORESTRY;

FORESTS; LATENT CLASS MODEL; RANDOM PARAMETER MODEL; RECREATION DEMAND; TRAVEL COST METHOD;

SPECIFICATIONS;

DATABASE; FOREST FLOOR; FORESTRY POLICY; HETEROGENEITY; LOGIT ANALYSIS; POLICY ANALYSIS; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY;

BALEARIC ISLANDS; MAJORCA; MEDITERRANEAN SEA; SPAIN;

EID: 78149495979     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9389-y     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Allenby GM, Rossi PE (1998) Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J Econom 89(1-2): 57-78.
2. Allenby GM, Arora N, Ginter JL (1998) On the heterogeneity of demand. J Mark Res 35(3): 384-389.
3. Andrews RL, Ainslie A, Currim IS (2002) An empirical comparison of logit choice models with discrete versus continuous representations of heterogeneity. J Mark Res 39(4): 479-487.
4. Armstrong P, Garrido R, Ortzar JdD (2001) Confidence intervals to bound the value of time. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 37(2-3): 143-161.
5. Balcombe K, Chalak A, Fraser I (2009) Model selection for the mixed logit with bayesian estimation. J Environ Econ Manage 57(2): 226-237.
6. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press series in transportation studies, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
7. Bhat CR (1997) An endogenous segmentation mode choice model with an application to intercity travel. Transp Sci 31(1): 34-48.
8. Bhat CR (1998) Accommodating variations in responsiveness to level-of-service measures in travel mode choice modeling. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 32(7): 495-507.
9. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resour Econ 23(4): 421-446.
10. Bujosa A, Riera A (2009) Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context. J Forest Econ. doi: 10. 1016/j. jfe. 2009. 11. 005.
11. Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2007) Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. Am J Agric Econ 89(1): 135-151.
12. Dillon W, Kumar A (1994) Latent structure and other mixture models in marketing: an integrative survey and overview. In: Bagozzi RP (eds) Advanced methods in marketing research. Blackwell, Cambridge.
13. Englin J, Shonkwiler JS (1995) Modeling recreation demand in the presence of unobservable travel costs: toward a travel price model. J Environ Econ Manag 29(3): 368-377.
14. Frühwirth-Schnatter S, Tchler R, Otter T (2004) Bayesian analysis of the heterogeneity model. J Bus Econ Stat 22(1): 2-15.
15. Greene WH, Hensher DA (2003) A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp Res Part B Methodol 37(8): 681-698.
16. Gupta S, Chintagunta PK (1994) On using demographic variables to determine segment membership in logit mixture models. J Mark Res 31(1): 128-136.
17. Hanemann WM (1982) Applied welfare analysis with qualitative response models. Cudare Working Papers.
18. Hanemann WM (1999) Welfare analysis with discrete choice models. In: Herriges JA, Kling CL (eds) Valuing recreation and the environment. Edward, Cheltenham.
19. Hensher D, Greene W (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transp 30(2): 133-176.
20. Hurvich CM, Tsai CL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76(2): 297-307.
21. Hynes S, Hanley N, Scarpa R (2008) Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. Am J Agric Econ 90(4): 1011-1027.
22. Lenk P, DeSarbo W (2000) Bayesian inference for finite mixtures of generalized linear models with random effects. Psychometrika 65(1): 93-119.
23. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp 105-142.
24. McFadden D, Train KE (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Applied Econom 15(5): 447-470.
25. Meijer E, Rouwendal J (2006) Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients. J Appl Econom 21(2): 227-244.
26. Morey E, Rossmann KG (2003) Using stated-preference questions to investigate variations in willingness to pay for preserving marble monuments: Classic heterogeneity, random parameters, and mixture models. J Cult Econ 27(3): 215-229.
27. Morey E, Thacher J, Breffle W (2006) Using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: a latent-class model. Environ Resour Econ 34(1): 91-115.
28. Olsen SB (2009) Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiments surveys considering non-market goods. Environ Resour Econ 44(4): 591-610.
29. Ouma E, Abdulai A, Drucker A (2007) Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits among cattle-keeping households in East Africa. Am J Agric Econ 89(4): 1005-1019.
30. Phaneuf DJ, Smith VK (2005) Recreation demand models. In: Mäler KG, Vincent J (eds) Handbook of environmental economics: valuing environmental changes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 671-761.
31. Provencher B, Bishop RC (2004) Does accounting for preference heterogeneity improve the forecasting of a random utility model? A case study. J Environ Econ Manag 48(1): 793-810.
32. Provencher B, Moore R (2006) A discussion of using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: a latent-class model. Environ Resour Econ 34(1): 117-124.
33. Provencher B, Baerenklau KA, Bishop RC (2002) A finite mixture logit model of recreational angling with serially correlated random utility. Am J Agric Econ 84(4): 1066-1075.
34. Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 80(4): 647-657.
35. Ruto E, Garrod G, Scarpa R (2008) Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya. Agric Econ 38(1): 89-98.
36. Scarpa R, Thiene M (2005) Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Econ 81(3): 426-444.
37. Scarpa R, Thiene M, Tempesta T (2007) Latent class count models of total visitation demand: days out hiking in the Eastern Alps. Environ Resour Econ 38(4): 447-460.
38. Shonkwiler JS, Shaw WD (2003) A finite mixture approach to analyzing income effects in random utility models: reservoir recreation along the Columbia river. In: Hanley N, Shaw WD, Wright RE (eds) The new economics of outdoor recreation. Edward, Cheltenham.
39. Small KA, Rosen HS (1981) Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econom J Econome Soc 49(1): 105-130.
40. Thacher JA, Morey E, Craighead WE (2005) Using patient characteristics and attitudinal data to identify depression treatment preference groups: a latent-class model. Depress Anxiety 21(2): 47-54.
41. Train KE (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ 74(2): 230-239.
42. Train KE (1999) Mixed logit models for recreation demand. In: Herriges JA, Kling CL (eds) Valuing recreation and the environment: revealed preference methods in theory and practice, New Horitzons in Environmental Economics. Edward, Cheltenham.
43. Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
44. von Haefen RH (2003) Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models. J Environ Econ Manag 45(2): 145-165.
45. Wedel M, Kamakura WA (2000) Market segmentation: conceptual methodological foundations. Kluwer, Boston.
46. Wedel M, Kamakura W (2002) Introduction to the special issue on market segmentation. Int J Res Mark 19(3): 181-183.
47. Wedel M, Kamakura W, Arora N, Bemmaor A, Chiang J, Elrod T, Johnson R, Lenk P, Neslin S, Poulsen CS (1999) Discrete and continuous representations of unobserved heterogeneity in choice modeling. Mark Lett 10(3): 219-232.