Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences

, Volume 1, Issue 2–3, pp 117–126

Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments

  • Danny Campbell
  • Riccardo Scarpa
  • W. George Hutchinson
Original Paper

Abstract

We report results from a discrete choice experiment designed to assess the general public’s preferences regarding rural landscape improvements. Using a random parameters logit model to account for unobserved taste heterogeneity, we exploit the panel nature of the dataset to retrieve partworths, or willingness to pay (WTP) values, for every individual in the sample. We subsequently use the Moran’s I test statistic to gauge the spatial dependence of these estimates for a range of spatial extents. We find that WTP estimates are positively spatially autocorrelated, but the degree of homogeneity diminishes as the spatial extent becomes larger before it eventually becomes relatively stable.

Keywords

Discrete choice experiments Moran’s I Random parameters logit Spatial dependence Willingness to pay 

JEL Classification

C25 Q51 Q53 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bateman, I.J., Jones, A.P., Lovett, A.A., Lake, I.R., Day, B.H.: Applying geographical information systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22(1), 219–269 (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman, I.J., Day, B.H., Georgiou, S., Lake, I.: The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 60(2), 450–460 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhat, C.R.: Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp. Res. Part B 35(7), 677–693 (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhat, C.R.: Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transp. Res. Part B 37(9), 837–855 (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bockstael, N.E.: Modeling economics and ecology: the importance of a spatial perspective. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 78(5), 1168–1180 (1996) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, D.: Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J. Agric. Econ. 58(3), 467–483 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W., Scarpa, R.: Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ. Res. Econ. (2008a). doi: 10.1007/s10640-008-9198-8
  8. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W., Scarpa, R.: Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ. Plann. A (2008b). doi: 10.1068/a4038
  9. Cliff, A.D., Ord, J.K.: Spatial Processes: Models and Applications. Pion Limited, London (1981) Google Scholar
  10. Eade, J.D.O., Moran, D.: Spatial economic valuation: benefits transfer using Geographical Information Systems. J. Environ. Manage. 48(2), 97–110 (1996) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrini, S., Scarpa, R.: Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 53(3), 342–363 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M.: Using classical simulation-based estimators to estimate individual WTP values. In: Scarpa, R., Alberini, A. (eds.) Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, pp. 17–34. Springer, Dordrecht (2005), Chapter 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanley, N., Schläpfer, F., Spurgeon, J.: Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J. Environ. Manage. 68(3), 297–304 (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H.: The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30(2), 133–176 (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H., Rose, J.M.: Deriving willingness-to-pay estimates of travel time savings from individual-based parameters. Environ. Plann. A 38(12), 2365–2376 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huber, J., Train, K.E.: On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean partworths. Mark. Lett. 12(3), 259–269 (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnston, R.J., Swallow, S.K., Bauer, D.M.: Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land use. Land Econ. 78(4), 481–500 (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lancaster, K.J.: A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74(2), 132–157 (1966) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A.: Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling. Transp. Res. Rec. 890, 11–17 (1982) Google Scholar
  20. Louviere, J.J., Woodworth, G.: Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J. Mark. Res. 20(4), 350–357 (1983) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manski, C.F.: The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 8(3), 229–254 (1977) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McFadden, D.L., Train, K.E.: Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 15(5), 447–470 (2000) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pate, J., Loomis, J.: The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol. Econ. 20(3), 199–207 (1997) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scarpa, R., Willis, K.G., Acutt, M.: Individual-specific welfare measures for public goods: a latent class approach to residential customers of Yorkshire water. In: Koundouri, P. (ed.) Econometrics Informing Natural Resource Management, pp. 316–337. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2005), Chapter 14 Google Scholar
  25. Scarpa, R., Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G.: Benefits estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents’ rationality in a choice experiment. Land Econ. 83(4), 617–634 (2007) Google Scholar
  26. Sillano, M., Ortúzar, J.D.: Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: some new evidence. Environ. Plann. A 37(3), 525–550 (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thurstone, L.L.: A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273–286 (1927) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Train, K.E.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge (2003) Google Scholar
  29. Troy, A., Wilson, M.A.: Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol. Econ. 60(2), 435–449 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danny Campbell
    • 1
  • Riccardo Scarpa
    • 2
  • W. George Hutchinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Gibson Institute for Land, Food and EnvironmentQueen’s University BelfastBelfastUK
  2. 2.Economics Department, Waikato Management SchoolUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations