Preference heterogeneity for renewable energy technology

Energy Economics

Volumn 42, Issue , 2014, Pages 101-114

  Yoo, James ^a   Ready, Richard C ^b  

^a Bethany College   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Hybrid random parameter latent class model; Individual specific willingness to pay; Latent class model; Random parameter model; Renewable energy

Indexed keywords

CLASS MODELING; LATENT CLASS MODEL; RANDOM PARAMETER MODEL; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SOLAR ENERGY;

TECHNOLOGY;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; ENERGY RESOURCE; LOGIT ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PUBLIC GOODS; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; SOLAR POWER; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84891361275     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Allenby G.M., Rossi P.E. Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econ. 1998, 89(1-2):57-78.
2. Bajari Patrick, Fox J.T., Ryan S.P. Linear regression of discrete choice models with nonparametric distributions of random coefficients. Am. Econ. Rev. 2007, 97(2):459-463.
3. Beharry-Borg N., Scarpa R. Valuing quantity changes in Caribbean Coastal Waters for heterogeneous beach visitors. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(5):1124-1139.
4. Ben-Akiva M.E., Swait J.D. The akaike likelihood ratio index. Transpo. Sci. 1986, 20(2):133-136.
5. Blamey R.K., Bennett J.W., Louviere J.J., Morrison M.D., Rolfe J.C. Attributes causality in environmental choice modeling. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 23:167-186.
6. Borchers A.M., Duke J.M., Parsons G.R. Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?. Energy Policy 2007, 35(6):3327-3334.
7. Boxall P.C., Adamovicz W. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 23(4):421-446.
8. Bujosa A., Riera A., Hicks R.L. Combining discrete and continuous representations of preference heterogeneity: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 47:477-493.
9. Campbell D. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 41:401-417.
10. Caussade S., Ortuzar J.D., Rizzi L.I., Hensher D.A. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Trans. Res. B 2005, 39:621-640.
11. Champ P.A., Boyle K., Brown T.C. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation 2003, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston.
12. Cook R.D., Nachtsheim C.J. A comparison of algorithms for constructing exact D-optimal designs. Technometrics 1980, 22:315-324.
13. Deshazo J.R., Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effect of complexity on choice consistency. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 44:123-143.
14. Ek K. Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 2005, 33(13):1677-1689.
15. Farha B. Willingness to pay for electricity from renewable resources: a review of utility market research. NREL/TP-550-26148 1999, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
16. Fedorov V.V. Theory of Optimal Designs 1972, Academic Press, New York.
17. Freeman A.M. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resources for the Future 1993, (Washington, D.C.).
18. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. B 2003, 37:681-698.
19. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. Revealing additional dimension of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model. Working paper 2010.
20. Hall P., Racine J., Li Q. Cross-validation and the estimation of conditional probability densities. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2004, 99(468):1015-1026.
21. Hensher D.A., Green W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
22. Hensher A.D., Rose J.M. Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: implications for willingness to pay. Transp. Res. E 2009, 45:583-590.
23. Jacoby J., Speller D., Berning C. Brand choice behavior as a function of information load: replication and extension. J. Consum. Res. 1974, 1:33-42.
24. Keller K.L., Staelin R. Effect of quality and quantity of information on decision and effectiveness. J. Consum. Res. 1987, 14:200-213.
25. Kosenius A.K. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the case of Eutrophication in the gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:528-538.
26. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68:715-719.
27. Ladenburg J., Dubgaard A. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 2007, 35(8):4059-4071.
28. Lancsar E., Louviere J.J. Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Econ. 2006, 15:797-811.
29. Luce M.F., Payne J.W., Bettman J.R. Coping with unfavorable attributes in choice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2000, 81(2):274-299.
30. Manski C. The structure of random utility models. Theor. Decis. 1977, 8(3):229-254.
31. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
32. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 2000, 15:447-470.
33. McIntosh E., Ryan M. Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences. J. Econ. Psychol. 2002, 23:367-382.
34. Milon J.W., Scrogin D. Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56(2):162-175.
35. Pennsylvania Utilities Commission (PUC) 2010 Annual Report; Alternative energy Portfolio Standards Act of 2004. Harrisburg, PA 2011.
36. Poe G.L., Severence-Lossin E.K., Welsh M.P. Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76:904-915.
37. Provencher B., Bishop R.C. Does accounting for preference heterogeneity improve the forecasting of a random utility model? A case study. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2004, 48(1):793-810.
38. Revelt D., Train K. Consumer-specific taste parameters and mixed logit: households' choice of electricity supplier. Department of Economics, Working Paper Series 2050731 2000, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economics Research, UC Berkeley.
39. Roeder K., Lynch K.G., Nagin D.S. Modeling uncertainty in latent class membership: a case study in criminology. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1999, 94:766-776.
40. Rosenberger R.S., Peterson G.L., Clarke A., Brown C. Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology, and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 44(1):63-76.
41. Sælensminde K. Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in a stated choice studies. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59:331-340.
42. Scarpa R., Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preference. Land Econ. 2005, 853:426-444.
43. Scarpa R., Willis Ken Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies. Energy Econ. 2010, 32(1):129-136.
44. Scarpa R., Gilbride T.J., Campbell D., Hensher D.A. Modeling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2009, 36(2):151-174.
45. Shen J. Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data. Appl. Econ. 2010, 41:2915-2924.
46. Swait J., Adamowicz The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 28:135-148.
47. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ. 1998, 74(2):230-239.
48. U.S.Energy Information Agency (EIA) Electric power annual with data for 2009. Table ES1-Summary Statistics for the United States 2010, (Washington, DC).
49. U.S.Energy Information Agency (EIA) Pennsylvania renewable electricity profile; Table 1-2009. Summary Renewable Electric Power Industry Statistics (Pennsylvania) 2011, (Washington, DC).
50. U.S.Energy Information Agency (EIA) Average monthly electricity consumption, prices, and bills by state. excel spreadsheet (Downloaded from http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3 on June 16, 2011).
51. Wedel M., Arora N., Bemmaor A., Chiang J., Elrod T., Johnson R., Lenk P., Neslin S., Poulsen C.S. Discrete and continuous representations of unobserved heterogeneity in choice modeling. Mark. Lett. 1999, 10(3):219-232.
52. Zwerina K., Huber J., Kuhfeld W.F. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Working Paper 1996, Fugua School of Business, Duke University, Durham.