A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 68, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 1021-1051

  Oviedo, José L ^a   Yoo, Hong Il ^b  

^a The Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas   (Spain)

^b DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discrete choice; Forest; Land use; Stated preference; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; ECONOMICS; FORESTRY; LAND USE;

DISCRETE CHOICE; DISCRETE CHOICE METHODS; DISTRIBUTION OF WILLINGNESS TO PAYS; ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOME; FOREST; NESTED LOGIT MODEL; STATED PREFERENCES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

REFORESTATION;

BIODIVERSITY; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EVERGREEN TREE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LAND USE; PROTECTED AREA; REFORESTATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; WOODLAND;

ANDALUCIA; LOS ALCORNOCALES NATURAL PARK; SPAIN;

QUERCUS SUBER;

EID: 84982787962     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: 15731502     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-016-0058-7     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Akaich F, Nayga RM, Gil JM (2013) Are results from non-hypothetical choice-based conjoint analyses and non-hypothetical recoded-ranking conjoint analyses similar? Am J Agric Econ 95:946–963
2. Barberá S, Pattanaik PK (1986) Falmagne and the rationalizability of stochastic choices in terms of random orderings. Econometrica 54:707715
3. Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K (2011) Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ Resour Econ 48:177–218
4. Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J (1981) Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J Econ 17:1–19
5. Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroish F (1992) Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res 24:149–164
6. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge
7. Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A (2004) Differentiated products demand system from a combination of micro and macro data. J Polit Econ 112:68–105
8. Bhat C (1997) An endogenous segmentation mode choice model with an application to intercity travel. Transp Sci 31:34–48
9. Boyle KJ, Holmes TP, Teisl MF, Roe B (2001) A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 83:441–454
10. Calfee J, Winston C, Stempski R (2001) Econometric issues in estimating consumer preferences from stated preference data: a case study of the value of automobile travel time. Rev Econ Stat 83:699–707
11. Cameron TA, Poe GL, Ethier RG, Schulze WD (2002) Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same? J Environ Econ Manag 34:391–425
12. Caparrós A, Campos P, Montero G (2003) An operative framework for total Hicksian income measurement: application to a multiple use forest. Environ Resour Econ 26:173–198
13. Caparrós A, Oviedo JL, Campos P (2008) Would you choose your preferred option? Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments. Am J Agric Econ 90:843–855
14. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37:181–210
15. Chang JB, Luck JL, Norwood (2009) How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior? Am J Agric Econ 91:518534
16. Chapman RG, Staelin R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J Mark Res 19:288–301
17. Claassen R, Hellerstein D, Kim SG (2013) Using mixed logit in land use models: can expectation-maximization (EM) algorithms facilitate estimation? Am J Agric Econ 95:419–425
18. Clark SL, Muthén B (2009) Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included in the analysis. mimeo. https://www.statmodel.com/download/relatinglca. Cited 24 Mar 2015
19. Dagsvik JK, Liu G (2009) A framework for analyzing rank-ordered data with application to automobile demand. Transp Res A 43:1–12
20. Doblas-Miranda E, Martínez-Vilalta J, Lloret F, Álvarez A, Ávila A, Bonet FJ, Brotons L, Castro J, Curiel Yuste J, Díaz M, Ferrandis P, Garca-Hurtado E, Iriondo JM, Keenan TF, Latron J, Llusiá J, Loepfe L, Mayol M, Moré G, Moya D, Peñuelas J, Pons X, Poyatos R, Sardans J, Sus O, Vallejo VR, Vayreda J, Retana J (2014) Reassessing global change research priorities in Mediterranean terrestrial ecosystems: how far have we come and where do we go from here? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24:25–43
21. Duke JM, Ilvento TW (2004) A conjoint analysis of public preferences for agricultural land preservation. Agric Resour Econ Rev 33:209–219
22. European Commission (2014) Comission Regulation (EU) N0 702/2014 of 25 June 2014. Off J Eur Union 57:193
23. Falmagne JC (1978) A representation theorem for finite scale systems. J Math Psychol 18:5272
24. Fok D, Paap R, Van Dijk B (2012) A rank-ordered logit model with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities. J Appl Econ 27:831–846
25. Giergiczny M, Hess S, Dekker T, Chintakayala PK (2013) Testing the consistency (or lack thereof) between choices in best-worst surveys. Paper presented at the 3rd international choice modelling conference, Sydney, 3–5 July 2013
26. Hausman J, Ruud P (1987) Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. J Econ 34:83–104
27. Heckman J, Singer B (1984) A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models for duration data. Econometrica 52:271–320
28. Herriges J, Kling C, Liu C-C, Tobias J (2010) What are the consequences of consequentiality? J Environ Econ Manag 59:6781
29. Herriges JA, Phaneuf DJ (2002) Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. Am J Agric Econ 84:1076–1090
30. Hess S, Ben-Akiva M, Gopinath D, Walker J (2011) Advantages of latent class over continuous mixture of logit models. mimeo. http://www.stephanehess.me.uk/papers/Hess_Ben-Akiva_Gopinath_Walker_May_2011. Cited 3 Mar 2016
31. Hole AR (2015) MIXLOGITWTP: Stata module to estimate mixed logit models in WTP space. Statistical Software Components S458037, Boston College, Department of Economics
32. Hoyos D, Mariel P, Pascual U, Etxano I (2012) Valuing a Natura 2000 Network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: an Illustration from the Basque Country. J For Econ 18:329–344
33. Huber R, Hunziker M, Lehmann B (2011) Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach. J Environ Plan Manag 54:93–113
34. Johnson KA, Polasky S, Nelson E, Pennington D (2012) Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: an agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin. Ecol Econ 79:71–79
35. Keane MP, Wasi N (2013) Comparing alternative models of heterogeneity in consumer choice behavior. J Appl Econ 28:1018–1045
36. Krawczyk M (2012) Testing for hypothetical bias in willingness to support a reforestation program. J For Econ 18:282–289
37. Layton DF (2000) Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 40:21–36
38. Layton DF, Brown G (2000) Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82:616–624
39. Layton DF, Lee ST (2006a) From ratings to rankings: the econometric analysis of stated preference ratings data. In: Halvorsen R, Layton DF (eds) Explorations in environmental and natural resource economics: essays in honor of Gardner M. Brown, Jr. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
40. Layton DF, Lee ST (2006b) Embracing model uncertainty: strategies for response pooling and model averaging. Environ Resour Econ 34:51–85
41. Layton DF, Levine RA (2003) How much does the far future matter? A hierarchical Bayesian analysis of the public’s willingness to mitigate ecological impacts of climate change. J Am Stat Assoc 98:533–544
42. Loomis J (2005) Economic values without prices: the importance of nonmarket values and valuation for informing public policy debates. Choices 20:179–182
43. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ (2015) Best-worst scaling: theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
44. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York
45. McFadden D (1978) Modeling the choice of residential location. In: Karlqvist A, Lundqvist L, Snickars F, Weibull J (eds) Spatial interaction theory and planning models. North Holland, Amsterdam
46. McFadden D (1986) The choice theory approach to market research. Mark Sci 5:275297
47. McFadden D, Train KE (2000) Mixed MNL models of discrete response. J Appl Econ 15:447–470
48. Mogas J, Riera P, Bennett J (2006) A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modeling with second-order interactions. J For Econ 12:5–30
49. Nunes PALD, Schokkaert E (2003) Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 45:231–245
50. Othman J, Rahajeng A (2013) Economic valuation of Jogjakarta’s tourism attributes: a contingent ranking analysis. Tour Econ 19:187–201
51. Ovando P, Campos P, Montero G (2007) Forestaciones con Encinas y Alcornoques en el Área de la Dehesa en el Marco del Reglamento (CEE) 2080/92 (1993–2000). Rev Española Estudio Agrosoc Pesq 214:173–186
52. Pacifico D, Yoo HI (2013) lclogit: a Stata command for fitting latent-class conditional logit models via the expectation-maximization algorithm. Stata J 13:625–639
53. Resano H, Sanjuan AI, Albisu LM (2012) Consumers response to the EU Quality policy allowing for heterogeneous preferences. Food Policy 37:355365
54. Santos T, Tellería JL, Díaz M, Carbonell R (2006) Evaluating the benefits of CAP reforms: can afforestations restore bird diversity in Mediterranean Spain? Basic Appl Ecol 7:483–495
55. Scachar R, Nalebuff B (2004) Verifying the solution from a nonlinear solver: a case study: a comment. Am Econ Rev 94:382–390
56. Scarpa R, Thiene M, Train KE (2008) Utility in willingness-to-pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Am J Agric Econ 90:994–1010
57. Scarpa R, Notaro S, Louviere J, Raffaelli R (2011) Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in Alpine Grazing Commons. Am J Agric Econ 93:813–828
58. Schulz N, Breustedt G, Latacz-Lohman U (2013) Assessing farmers’ willingness to accept “greening”: insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. J Agric Econ 65:26–48
59. Train KE (2008) EM algorithms for nonparametric estimation of mixing distributions. J Choice Model 1:40–69
60. Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York
61. Train KE, Weeks M (2005) Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In: Alberini A, Scarpa R (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental resource economics. Springer, Dordrecht
62. Train KE, Winston C (2007) Vehicle choice behavior and the declining market share of U.S. automakers. Int Econ Rev 48:1469–1496
63. Varela E, Giergiczny M, Riera P, Mahieu P-A, Soliño M (2014) Social preferences for fuel break management programs in Spain: a choice modelling application to prevention of forest fires. Int J Wildland Fire 23(2):281–289
64. Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am Econ J Microecon 4:145–171
65. Vossler CA, Evans MF (2009) Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality. J Environ Econ Manag 58:338–345
66. Vossler CA, Watson SB (2013) Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. J Econ Behav Organ 86:137–147
67. Wustemann H, Meyerhoff J, Ruhs M, Schafer A, Hartje V (2014) Financial costs and benefits of a program of measures to implement a national strategy on biological diversity in Germany. Land Use Policy 36:307–318
68. Yan J, Yoo HI (2014) The seeming unreliability of rank-ordered data as a consequence of model misspecification. MPRA Paper No. 56285. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/56285/. Cited 3 Mar 2016
69. Yoo HI, Doiron D (2013) The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ 32:1166–1179