Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 68, Issue 4, pp 1021–1051 | Cite as

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

Article
  • 295 Downloads

Abstract

We analyze stated ranking data collected from recreational visitors to the Alcornocales Natural Park (ANP) in Spain. The ANP is a large protected area which comprises mainly cork oak woodlands. The visitors ranked cork oak reforestation programs delivering different sets of environmental (reforestation technique, biodiversity, forest surface) and social (jobs and recreation sites created) outcomes. We specify a novel latent class nested logit model for rank-ordered data to estimate the distribution of willingness-to-pay for each outcome. Our modeling approach jointly exploits recent advances in discrete choice methods. The results suggest that prioritizing biodiversity would increase certainty over public support for a reforestation program. In addition, a substantial fraction of the visitor population are willing to pay more for the social outcomes than the environmental outcomes, whereas the existing reforestation subsidies are often justified by the environmental outcomes alone.

Keywords

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

JEL Classification

C33 C35 C51 Q23 Q51 Q57 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Alejandro Caparrós and Pablo Campos for allowing us to access the data used in this study. We wish to thank Editor Christian Vossler and two anonymous referees for helpful and constructive comments. All views expressed herein are our own.

Funding Oviedo’s involvement in this study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (VEABA ECO2013-42110-P, I + D National Plan).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10640_2016_58_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 2671 KB)

References

  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 95:946–963Google Scholar
  2. Barberá S, Pattanaik PK (1986) Falmagne and the rationalizability of stochastic choices in terms of random orderings. Econometrica 54:707715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K (2011) Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ Resour Econ 48:177–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J (1981) Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J Econ 17:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroish F (1992) Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res 24:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A (2004) Differentiated products demand system from a combination of micro and macro data. J Polit Econ 112:68–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhat C (1997) An endogenous segmentation mode choice model with an application to intercity travel. Transp Sci 31:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyle KJ, Holmes TP, Teisl MF, Roe B (2001) A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 83:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 83:699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 34:391–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 26:173–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caparrós A, Oviedo JL, Campos P (2008) Would you choose your preferred option? Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments. Am J Agric Econ 90:843–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37:181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chang JB, Luck JL, Norwood (2009) How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior? Am J Agric Econ 91:518534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapman RG, Staelin R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J Mark Res 19:288–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 95:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 43:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 24:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duke JM, Ilvento TW (2004) A conjoint analysis of public preferences for agricultural land preservation. Agric Resour Econ Rev 33:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission (2014) Comission Regulation (EU) N0 702/2014 of 25 June 2014. Off J Eur Union 57:193Google Scholar
  23. Falmagne JC (1978) A representation theorem for finite scale systems. J Math Psychol 18:5272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fok D, Paap R, Van Dijk B (2012) A rank-ordered logit model with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities. J Appl Econ 27:831–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 2013Google Scholar
  26. Hausman J, Ruud P (1987) Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. J Econ 34:83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heckman J, Singer B (1984) A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models for duration data. Econometrica 52:271–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herriges J, Kling C, Liu C-C, Tobias J (2010) What are the consequences of consequentiality? J Environ Econ Manag 59:6781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herriges JA, Phaneuf DJ (2002) Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. Am J Agric Econ 84:1076–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  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 18:329–344Google Scholar
  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 54:93–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 79:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keane MP, Wasi N (2013) Comparing alternative models of heterogeneity in consumer choice behavior. J Appl Econ 28:1018–1045Google Scholar
  36. Krawczyk M (2012) Testing for hypothetical bias in willingness to support a reforestation program. J For Econ 18:282–289Google Scholar
  37. Layton DF (2000) Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 40:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Layton DF, Brown G (2000) Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82:616–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  40. Layton DF, Lee ST (2006b) Embracing model uncertainty: strategies for response pooling and model averaging. Environ Resour Econ 34:51–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 98:533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loomis J (2005) Economic values without prices: the importance of nonmarket values and valuation for informing public policy debates. Choices 20:179–182Google Scholar
  43. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ (2015) Best-worst scaling: theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  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, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  46. McFadden D (1986) The choice theory approach to market research. Mark Sci 5:275297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McFadden D, Train KE (2000) Mixed MNL models of discrete response. J Appl Econ 15:447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mogas J, Riera P, Bennett J (2006) A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modeling with second-order interactions. J For Econ 12:5–30Google Scholar
  49. Nunes PALD, Schokkaert E (2003) Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 45:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Othman J, Rahajeng A (2013) Economic valuation of Jogjakarta’s tourism attributes: a contingent ranking analysis. Tour Econ 19:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 214:173–186Google Scholar
  52. Pacifico D, Yoo HI (2013) lclogit: a Stata command for fitting latent-class conditional logit models via the expectation-maximization algorithm. Stata J 13:625–639Google Scholar
  53. Resano H, Sanjuan AI, Albisu LM (2012) Consumers response to the EU Quality policy allowing for heterogeneous preferences. Food Policy 37:355365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 7:483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scachar R, Nalebuff B (2004) Verifying the solution from a nonlinear solver: a case study: a comment. Am Econ Rev 94:382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 90:994–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 93:813–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 65:26–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Train KE (2008) EM algorithms for nonparametric estimation of mixing distributions. J Choice Model 1:40–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  62. Train KE, Winston C (2007) Vehicle choice behavior and the declining market share of U.S. automakers. Int Econ Rev 48:1469–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am Econ J Microecon 4:145–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 58:338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vossler CA, Watson SB (2013) Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. J Econ Behav Organ 86:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 36:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 32:1166–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP)Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficias (CSIC)MadridSpain
  2. 2.Durham University Business SchoolDurham UniversityDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations