The influence of individuals in forming collective household preferences for water quality

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 161-174

  Rungie, Cam ^a   Scarpa, Riccardo ^b,c   Thiene, Mara ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Household preference; Preference heterogeneity; Structural choice model; Tap water

Indexed keywords

DECISION THEORY; ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTS;

CHOICE MODEL; COLLECTIVE PREFERENCE; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HOUSEHOLD PREFERENCE; INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE; PREFERENCE HETEROGENEITY; TAP WATER;

WATER QUALITY;

EID: 84904558221     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2014.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere.J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80(2):64-75.
2. Adamowicz W., Hanemann M., Swait J., Johnson R., Layton D., Regenwetter M., Reimer T., Sorkin R. Decision strategy and structure in households: a groups perspective. Market. Lett. 2005, 16:387-399.
3. Arora N., Allenby G. Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. J. Market. Res. 1999, 36(4):76-487.
4. Ashok K., Dillon W.R., Yuan S. Extending discrete choice models to incorporate attitudinal and other latent variables. J. Market. Res. 2002, XXXIX:31-46.
5. Baiocchi G. Monte Carlo methods in environmental economics. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 317-340. Springer-Verlag, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
6. Bateman I., Munro A. An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Econ. J. 2005, 115:176-189.
7. Beharry N., Hensher D.A., Scarpa R. An analytical framework for joint vs separate decisions by couples in choice experiments: the case of coastal water quality in Tobago. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 43:95-117.
8. Ben-Akiva M., Morikawa T. Estimation of switching models from revealed preference and stated intentions. Transp. Res. A 1990, 24A(6):485-495.
9. Ben-Akiva M., McFadden D., Abe M., Böckenholt U., Bolduc D., Gopinath D., Morikawa T., Ramaswamy V., Rao V., Revelt D., Steinberg D. Modelling methods for discrete choice analysis. Market. Lett. 1997, 8(3):273-286.
10. Ben-Akiva M., McFadden D., Train K., Walker J., Bhat C., Bierlaire M., Bolduc D., Boersch-Supan Z., Brownstone D., Bunch D.S., Daly A., De Palma A., Gopinath D., Karlstrom A., Munizaga M.A. Hybrid choice models: progress and challenges. Market. Lett. 2002, 13(3):163-175.
11. Bolduc D, Alvarez-Daziano R. On estimation of hybrid choice models. Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-Art and the State-of-Practice 2010, Emerald, England. S. Hess, A. Daly (Eds.).
12. Bollen K.A. Structural Equations with Latent Variables 1989, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
13. Brownstone D., Train K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J. Econometr. 1999, 89:109-129.
14. Coote L.V., Rungie C.M., Louviere J.J. Consumers Preferences for Carbon Mitigation Strategies 2011, UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
15. Dosman D., Adamowicz W. Combining stated and revealed preference data to construct an empirical examination of intrahousehold bargaining. Rev. Econ. Househ. 2006, 4:15-34.
16. Dube J.-P., Chintagunta P., Petrin A., Bronenberg B., Goettler R., Seetharaman P.B., Sudhir K., Thomadsen R., Zhao Y. Structural applications of the discrete choice model. Market. Lett. 2002, 13(3):207-220.
17. Elrod T. Choice map: inferring a product-market map from panel data. Market. Sci. 1988, 7(1):21-40.
18. Elrod T., Keane M.P. A factor-analytic probit model for representing the market structure in panel data. J. Market. Res. 1995, 32:1-16.
19. Ferrini S., Scarpa R. Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2007, 53:342-363.
20. Hensher D., Louviere J., Swait J. Combining sources of preference data. J. Econometr. 1999, 89:197-221.
21. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Black I. Interactive agency choice in automobile purchase decisions: the role of negotiation in determining equilibrium choice outcomes. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 2008, 42(2):269-296.
22. Herriges J.A., Phaneuf D.J. Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 84:1076-1090.
23. Hess S., Stathopoulos A. Linking Response Quality to Survey Engagement: A Combined Random Scale and Latent Variable Approach 2011, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
24. Jöreskog K.G. A general method for analysis of covariance structures. Biometrika 1970, 57:239-251.
25. Jöreskog K.G., Sörbom D. LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide 1996, Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, IL.
26. Kanninen B. Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J. Market. Res. 2002, 39(2):214-227.
27. Keane M.P. Modeling heterogeneity and state dependence in consumer choice behavior. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 1997, 15(3):310-327.
28. Kerr G.N., Sharp B.M.H. Choice experiment adaptive design benefits: a case study. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2010, 54(4):407-420.
29. Louviere J., Street D., Carson R., Ainslie A., Deshazo J.R., Cameron R., Hensher D., Kohn R., Marley A. Dissecting the random component of utility. Market. Lett. 2002, 13(3):177-193.
30. Marcucci E., Rotaris L., Danielis R. Environmental quality and accessibility trade-offs in household residential location choice. Sci. Reg. 2010, 9(2):42-46.
31. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York, NY. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
32. McFadden D. Disaggregate behavioral travel demands RUM side: a 30-year retrospective. The Leading Edge of Travel Behavior Research 2001, Pergamon Press, Oxford. D. Hensher (Ed.).
33. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econometr. 2000, 15:447-470.
34. Morikawa T., Ben-Akiva M., McFadden D. Discrete choice models incorporating revealed preference and psychometric data. Econometr. Models Market. 2002, 16:29-55.
35. Rose J.M., Bliemer M.C.J. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transp. Rev. 2009, 29(5):587-617.
36. Rungie, C.M., (2011). DiSCoS, Discrete Structural Choice Software, Version 1.1, A Guide to the Program and Applications, School of Marketing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
37. Rungie C.M., Coote L.V., Louviere J.J. Structural choice modelling: theory and applications to combining choice experiments. J. Choice Model. 2011, 4(3):1-29.
38. Rungie C.M., Coote L.V., Louviere J.J. Latent variables in discrete choice experiments. J. Choice Model. 2012, 5(3):145-156.
39. Sandor Z., Wedel M. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. J. Market. Res. 2001, 38(4):430-444.
40. 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. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2008, 52:253-282.
41. Scarpa R., Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G. Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents rationality in a choice experiment study. Land Econ. 2007, 83(4):617-634.
42. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Hensher D. 'Preferences for tap water attributes within couples: an exploration of alternative mixed logit parameterizations'. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48:W01520.
43. Strand J. Public-good valuation and intra-family allocation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 38:527-543.
44. Temme D., Paulssen M., Dannewald T. Incorporating latent variables into discrete choice models-a simultaneous estimation approach using SEM software. BuR - Bus. Res. 2008, 1(2):230-237.
45. Thiene M., Scarpa R. Hiking in the Alps: exploring substitution patterns of hiking destinations. Tour. Econ. 2008, 14(2):263-282.
46. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York.
47. Vermeulen B., Goos P., Scarpa R., Vandebroek M.L. Bayesian conjoint choice designs for measuring willingness to pay. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 48(1):129-149.
48. Walker, J.L., 2001. Extended Discrete Choice Models: Integrated Framework, Flexible Error Structures, and Latent Variables, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D., p. 208.
49. Willis K., Scarpa R., Acutt M. Assessing water company customer preferences and willingness to pay for service improvements: a stated choice analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2005, 41:W02019.
50. Yáñez M., Raveau S., de Dios Ortúzar J. Inclusion of latent variables in mixed logit models: modelling and forecasting. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2010, 44(9):744-753.