How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 111-121

  Torres, Cati ^a   Hanley, Nick ^b   Riera, Antoni ^a  

^a Centre de Recerca Econmica (UIBSA NOSTRA)   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Attributes; Choice experiments; Efficiency; Monte Carlo analysis; Utility specification; Welfare measurement

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ATTRIBUTES; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; UTILITY SPECIFICATION; WELFARE MEASUREMENT;

EXPERIMENTS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHODS;

SPECIFICATIONS;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; LOGIT ANALYSIS; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; WELFARE ECONOMICS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 79958797481     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.11.007     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Adamowicz W.L., Fletcher J.J., Graham-Tomasi T. Functional form and the statistical properties of welfare measures. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 1989, 71:414-421.
2. Alberini A. Efficiency vs bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: bivariate and interval-data models. J. Environ. Econ. Manag 1995, 29:169-180.
3. Balcombe K., Chalak A., Fraser I. Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2009, 57:226-237.
4. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 2003, 12:281-294.
5. Ferrini S., Scarpa R. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2007, 53:342-363.
6. Fiebig D.G., Keane M.P., Louviere J., Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Science 2009, 1-29. (articles in advance).
7. W.M. Hanemann, Applied Welfare Analysis with Quantitative Response Models, Working Paper no. 241. University of California, Berkeley, 1984.
8. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
9. Herriges J.A., Kling C.L. The performance of nested logit models when welfare estimation is the goal. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 1997, 79:792-802.
10. Kling C.L. A simulation approach to comparing multiple site recreation demand models using Chesapeake Bay survey data. Mar. Resour. Econ. 1987, 4:95-109.
11. Kling C.L. The reliability of estimates of environmental benefits from recreation demand models. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 1988, 70:892-901.
12. Kling C.L. The importance of functional form in the estimation of welfare. West. J. Agri. Econ. 1989, 14:168-174.
13. Kling C.L. Estimating the precision of welfare measures. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1991, 21:244-259.
14. Kling C.L. The gains from combining travel cost and contingent valuation data to value nonmarket goods. Land Econ. 1997, 73:428-439.
15. Kling C.L., Sexton R.J. Bootstrapping in applied welfare analysis. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 1990, 72:406-418.
16. Kling C.L., Thomson C.J. The implications of model specification for welfare estimation in nested logit models. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 1996, 78:103-114.
17. Louviere J.J., Hernsher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
18. Lusk J.L., Norwood F.B. Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 2005, 87:771-785.
19. Park T., Loomis J.B., Creel M. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ. 1991, 67:64-73.
20. Scarpa R., Bateman I. Efficiency gains afforded by improved bid designs versus follow-up valuation questions in discrete-choice CV studies. Land Econ. 2000, 76:299-311.
21. Scarpa R., Rose J.M. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust. J. Agri. Resour. Econ. 2008, 52:253-282.
22. Torres C.M., Riera A., García D. Are preferences for water quality different for second-home residents?. Tourism Econ. 2009, 15:629-651.
23. Train K., Weeks M. Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 1-16. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).