Preferences for tap water attributes within couples: An exploration of alternative mixed logit parameterizations

Water Resources Research

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Scarpa, Riccardo ^a,b   Thiene, Mara ^c   Hensher, David A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c Dipartimento Territorio e Sistemi Agroforestali Agripolis   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; DATA COLLECTION; HOUSEHOLD LEVEL; JOINTNESS; MARGINAL RATES; MIXED LOGIT; MIXED LOGIT MODELS; MODEL SPECIFICATIONS; MULTI-ATTRIBUTES; MULTINOMIAL LOGIT MODEL; NON-MARKET VALUATION; PARAMETERIZATIONS; PREFERENCE HETEROGENEITY; SALIENT FEATURES; SPACE MODELS; STATED PREFERENCE SURVEYS; STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES; TAP WATER; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EXPERIMENTS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

ECONOMICS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DRINKING WATER; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; EXPLORATION; HETEROGENEITY; LOGIT ANALYSIS; PARAMETERIZATION; THEORETICAL STUDY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84856296174     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2010WR010148     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adamowicz, W., M. Hanemann, J. Swait, R. Johnson, D. Layton, M. Regen-wetter, T. Reimer, and R. Sorkin (2005), Decision strategy and structure in households: A groups perspective, Marketing Lett., 16, 387-399. (Pubitemid 43201201)
2. Arora, N., and G. Allenby (1999), Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making, J. Marketing Res., 36(4), 476-487.
3. Balcombe, K., A. Chalak, and I. M. Fraser (2009), Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 57, 226-237.
4. Bateman, I., and A. Munro (2005), An experiment on risky choice amongst households, Econ. J., 115, 176-189.
5. Becker, G. (1973), A theory of marriage: Part I, J. Polit. Econ., 81, 813-846.
6. Beharry-Borg, N., D. A. Hensher, and R. Scarpa (2009), An analytical framework for joint vs separate decisions by couples in choice experiments: The case of coastal water quality in Tobago, Environ. Resour. Econ., 43, 95-117.
7. Breffle, W. S., and E. R. Morey (2000), Investigating preference heterogeneity in a repeated discrete-choice recreation demand model of Atlantic salmon fishing, Marine Resour. Econ., 15, 1-20.
8. Browning, M., and P. A. Chiappori (1998), Efficient intra-household allocations: A general characterization and empirical tests, Econometrica, 66(6), 1241-1278. (Pubitemid 128467209)
9. Chiuri, M. C. (2000), Individual decisions and household demand for consumption and leisure, Res. Econ., 54, 277-324.
10. Daly, A. J., S. Hess, and E. Train (2012), Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficients models, Transportation, 39(1), 19-31.
11. Dosman, D., and W. Adamowicz (2006), Combining stated and revealed preference data to construct an empirical examination of intrahousehold bargaining, Rev. Econ. Household, 4, 15-34. (Pubitemid 43548767)
12. Dupont, D., W. L. Adamowicz, and A. Krupnick (2010), Differences in water consumption choices in Canada: The role of socio-demographics, experiences, and perceptions of health risks, J. Water Health, 8(4), 671-686.
13. Ferrini, S., and R. Scarpa (2007), Designs with a-priori information for non-market valuation with choice-experiments: A Monte Carlo study, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 53, 342-363. (Pubitemid 46836726)
14. Fiebig, D. G., M. P. Keane, J. Louviere, and N. Wasi (2010), The generalized multinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity, Marketing Sci., 29(3), 393-421, doi:10.1287/mksc.1090.0508.
15. Genius, M., E. Hatzaki, E. M. Kouromichelaki, G. Kouvakis, S. Nikiforaki, and K. P. Tsagarakis (2008), Evaluating consumers' willingness to pay for improved potable water quality and quantity, Water Resour. Manage., 22, 1825-1834.
16. Greene, W. H., and D. A. Hensher (2010), Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models, Transportation, 37(3), 413-428.
17. Hensher D. A., N. Shore, and K. Train (2005), Households' willingness to pay for water service attributes, Environ. Resour. Econ., 32, 509-531. (Pubitemid 41744304)
18. Hensher, D. A., S. M. Puckett, and J. M. Rose (2007), Extending stated choice analysis to recognise agent-specific attribute endogeneity in bilateral group negotiation and choice: A think piece, Transportation, 34(6), 667-679. (Pubitemid 47470681)
19. Hensher, D. A., J. M. Rose, and I. Black (2008), Interactive agency choice in automobile purchase decisions: The role of negotiation in determining equilibrium choice outcomes, J. Transport Econ. Policy, 42(2), 269-296.
20. Hensher, D. A., M. J. Beck, and J. M. Rose (2011), Accounting for preference and scale heterogeneity in establishing whether it matters who is interviewed to reveal household automobile purchase preferences, Environ. Resour. Econ., 49, 1-22.
21. Hess, S., K. E. Train, and J. W. Polak (2006), On the use of a modified Latin hypercube sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a mixed logit model for vehicle choice, Transport. Res. B, 40, 147-167.
22. Kanninen, B. (1993), Optimal experimental design for double-bounded di-chotomous choice contingent valuation, Land Econ., 69(2), 138-146.
23. Keane, M. (2006), The generalized logit model: Preliminary ideas on a research program, presentation at Motorola-CenSoC Hong Kong Meeting, 22 October.
24. Kerr, G. N., and B. M. H. Sharp (2010), Choice experiment adaptive design benefits: A case study, Aust. J. Agr. Resour. Econ., 54, 40-420.
25. Lampietti, J. (1999), Do husbands and wives make the same choices? Evidence from Northern Ethiopia, Econ. Lett., 62, 253-260.
26. Louviere, J., and T. Eagle (2006), Confound it! That pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions, Proceedings of the 2006 Sawtooth Software Conference, pp. 211-228, Sawtooth Software, Sequem, Washington.
27. Lusk, J. L., and F. B. Norwood (2005), Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates, Am. J. Agr. Econ., 87(3), 771-785 (Pubitemid 41114929)
28. Marcucci, E., A. Stathopoulos, L. Rotaris, and R. Danielis (2011), Comparing single and joint preferences: A choice experiment on residential location in three-member households, Environ. Plan. Part A, 43(5), 1209-1225.
29. McFadden, D., and K. Train (2000), Mixed MNL models for discrete response, J. Appl. Econ., 15(5), 447-470.
30. Puckett, S. M., D. A. Hensher, J. M. Rose, and A. Collins (2007), Design and development of a stated choice experiment for interdependent agents: Accounting for interactions between buyers and sellers of urban freight services, Transportation, 34(4), 429-451. (Pubitemid 47023687)
31. Quiggin, J. (1998), Individual and household willingness to pay for public goods, Am. J. Agr. Econ., 80, 58-63. (Pubitemid 128432279)
32. Rose, J. M., and M. C. J. Bleimer (2009), Stated preference experimental design strategies, Transport Rev., 29(5), 587-617.
33. Sandor, Z., and M. Wedel (2001), Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs, J. Marketing Res., 38(4), 430-444
34. Scarpa, R., and J. M. Rose (2008), Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: How to measure it, what to report and why, Aust. J. Agr. Resour. Econ., 52, 253-282.
35. Scarpa, R., K. G. Willis, and M. Acutt (2007), Individual-specific welfare measures for public goods: A latent class approach to residential customers of Yorkshire Water, in Econometrics Informing Natural Resource Management, edited by P. Koundouri, pp. 316-337, Edward Elgar Publisher, Cheltenham, U. K.
36. Scarpa, R., M. Thiene, and K. Train (2008), Utility in willingness to pay space: A tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps, Am. J. Agr. Econ., 90(4), 994-1010.
37. Smith, V., and G. V. Houtven (1998), Non-market valuation and the household, Discussion Paper 98-31, 1998 Resources for the Future.
38. Strand, J. (2007), Public-good valuation and intra-family allocation, Environ. Resour. Econ., 38, 527-543. (Pubitemid 350132150)
39. Swait, J., and J. Louviere (1993), The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and use of multinomiallogit models, J. Marketing Res., 30, 305-314.
40. Thiene, M., and R. Scarpa (2009), Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models, Environ. Resour. Econ., 44(3), 379-395.
41. Train K. (1998), Recreation demand models with taste differences over people, Land Econ., 74(2), 230-239. (Pubitemid 28437633)
42. Train, K., and M. Weeks (2005), Discrete choice models in preference space and willing-to-pay space, in Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, edited by R. Scarpa and A. Alberini, pp. 1-16, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
43. Vermeulen, B., P. Goos, R. Scarpa, and M. Vandebroek (2011), Conjoint choice designs for measuring WTP, Environ. Resour. Econ., 48, 129-149.
44. Vermeulen, F. (2002), Collective household models: Principles and main results, J. Econ. Surv., 16, 533-564.
45. Willis, K., R. Scarpa, and M. Acutt (2005), Assessing water company customer preferences and willingness to pay for service improvements: A stated choice analysis, Water Resour. Res. 41, W02019.