Mapping the WTP Distribution from Individual Level Parameter Estimates Matthew W. Winden University of Wisconsin - Whitewater WEA Conference – November.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Value-at-Risk: A Risk Estimating Tool for Management

Advertisements

TEEB Training Session 4: Criticisms of valuation.

Brief introduction on Logistic Regression

117 april 2015 CO 2 : SHADOW PRICE Well defined political target ? Not really based on scientific targets Policy target, but the rules for implementation.

Hierarchical Linear Modeling for Detecting Cheating and Aberrance Statistical Detection of Potential Test Fraud May, 2012 Lawrence, KS William Skorupski.

A.M. Alonso, C. García-Martos, J. Rodríguez, M. J. Sánchez Seasonal dynamic factor model and bootstrap inference: Application to electricity market forecasting.

Rural Economy Research Centre Modelling taste heterogeneity among walkers in Ireland Edel Doherty Rural Economy Research Centre (RERC) Teagasc Department.

Discrete Choice Model of Bidder Behavior in Sponsored Search Quang Duong University of Michigan Sebastien Lahaie

The Art of Model Building and Statistical Tests. 2 Outline The art of model building Using Software output The t-statistic The likelihood ratio test The.

ESTIMATING CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR WILLINGNESS TO PAY MEASURES: COMPARISONS AND EXTENSIONS 1 Gatta V. a, Marcucci E. a, Scaccia L. b a DIPES/CREI, University.

1) Introduction Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the estimation of passive use value, was an area of economic research not well known. However, based.

Choice Modeling Externalities: A Conjoint Analysis of Transportation Fuel Preferences Matthew Winden and T.C. Haab, Ph.D. Agricultural, Environmental,

Chapter Seventeen HYPOTHESIS TESTING

1 Civil Systems Planning Benefit/Cost Analysis Scott Matthews / and Lecture 2 - 9/1/2004.

Topic 2: Statistical Concepts and Market Returns

Chapter 11 Multiple Regression.

Further Inference in the Multiple Regression Model Prepared by Vera Tabakova, East Carolina University.

Using ranking and DCE data to value health states on the QALY scale using conventional and Bayesian methods Theresa Cain.

Statistical Comparison of Two Learning Algorithms Presented by: Payam Refaeilzadeh.

© 1999 Prentice-Hall, Inc. Chap Chapter Topics Hypothesis Testing Methodology Z Test for the Mean (  Known) p-Value Approach to Hypothesis Testing.

Hypothesis Testing.

Regression Model Building Setting: Possibly a large set of predictor variables (including interactions). Goal: Fit a parsimonious model that explains variation.

1 A MONTE CARLO EXPERIMENT In the previous slideshow, we saw that the error term is responsible for the variations of b 2 around its fixed component 

Chapter 14 Inferential Data Analysis

15. Stated Preference Experiments. Panel Data Repeated Choice Situations Typically RP/SP constructions (experimental) Accommodating “panel data” Multinomial.

Simple Linear Regression Analysis

Item Analysis: Classical and Beyond SCROLLA Symposium Measurement Theory and Item Analysis Modified for EPE/EDP 711 by Kelly Bradley on January 8, 2013.

TOPLHCWG. Introduction The ATLAS+CMS combination of single-top production cross-section measurements in the t channel was performed using the BLUE (Best.

PRESENTED BY: OLILA Dennis Opiyo 1 Nyikal Rose Adhiambo Otieno David Jakinda Presentation prepared for the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC)

Xitao Fan, Ph.D. Chair Professor & Dean Faculty of Education University of Macau Designing Monte Carlo Simulation Studies.

Discrete Choice Models William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.

Calibration Guidelines 1. Start simple, add complexity carefully 2. Use a broad range of information 3. Be well-posed & be comprehensive 4. Include diverse.

1 CADTH Value Methods Panel Using Best Worst Scaling to elicit Values Carlo Marra.

1 Today Null and alternative hypotheses 1- and 2-tailed tests Regions of rejection Sampling distributions The Central Limit Theorem Standard errors z-tests.

Analysis and Visualization Approaches to Assess UDU Capability Presented at MBSW May 2015 Jeff Hofer, Adam Rauk 1.

Hypothesis Testing. Steps for Hypothesis Testing Fig Draw Marketing Research Conclusion Formulate H 0 and H 1 Select Appropriate Test Choose Level.

MGT-491 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH FOR MANAGEMENT OSMAN BIN SAIF Session 19.

Multi-Metric Indicator Use in Social Preference Elicitation and Valuation Patrick Fogarty UW-Whitewater Economics Student.

On visible choice set and scope sensitivity: - Dealing with the impact of study design on the scope sensitivity Improving the Practice of Benefit Transfer:

Predicting the Benefits and Costs of Criminal Justice Policies TAD Conference, August 23, 2013 David L. Weimer La Follette School of Public Affairs University.

Inference for Regression Simple Linear Regression IPS Chapter 10.1 © 2009 W.H. Freeman and Company.

Contingent Valuation Methods See Boardman et al., Chapter 14 Interview individuals to elicit their preferences for different states of the world. Based.

Controlling for Common Method Variance in PLS Analysis: The Measured Latent Marker Variable Approach Wynne W. Chin Jason Bennett Thatcher Ryan T. Wright.

4 Hypothesis & Testing. CHAPTER OUTLINE 4-1 STATISTICAL INFERENCE 4-2 POINT ESTIMATION 4-3 HYPOTHESIS TESTING Statistical Hypotheses Testing.

Prepared by Jonathan Hoechst Rebecca McAtee Jonathan McBride Ulrike Nischan.

1 Chapter 9 Hypothesis Testing. 2 Chapter Outline  Developing Null and Alternative Hypothesis  Type I and Type II Errors  Population Mean: Known 

Statistical Inference for the Mean Objectives: (Chapter 9, DeCoursey) -To understand the terms: Null Hypothesis, Rejection Region, and Type I and II errors.

Sean Canavan David Hann Oregon State University The Presence of Measurement Error in Forestry.

14 Statistical Testing of Differences and Relationships.

150th EAAE Seminar: The spatial dimension in analysing the linkages between agriculture, rural development and the environment Edinburgh, 22 Oct 2015 Julian.

Sampling and Statistical Analysis for Decision Making A. A. Elimam College of Business San Francisco State University.

Tutorial I: Missing Value Analysis

[Part 15] 1/24 Discrete Choice Modeling Aggregate Share Data - BLP Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.

Research Methodology Lecture No :26 (Hypothesis Testing – Relationship)

Lexicographic / discontinuous choices. Lexicographic choices  Respondents base their choice on a subset of the presented attributes  Continuity axiom.

[Part 5] 1/43 Discrete Choice Modeling Ordered Choice Models Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.

Using Prior Scores to Evaluate Bias in Value-Added Models Raj Chetty, Stanford University and NBER John N. Friedman, Brown University and NBER Jonah Rockoff,

Class Seven Turn In: Chapter 18: 32, 34, 36 Chapter 19: 26, 34, 44 Quiz 3 For Class Eight: Chapter 20: 18, 20, 24 Chapter 22: 34, 36 Read Chapters 23 &

Hypothesis Testing. Steps for Hypothesis Testing Fig Draw Marketing Research Conclusion Formulate H 0 and H 1 Select Appropriate Test Choose Level.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2003 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,All Rights Reserved. Part Four ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA.

Model Comparison. Assessing alternative models We don’t ask “Is the model right or wrong?” We ask “Do the data support a model more than a competing model?”

Hypothesis Testing. Steps for Hypothesis Testing Fig Draw Marketing Research Conclusion Formulate H 0 and H 1 Select Appropriate Test Choose Level.

Yandell – Econ 216 Chap 15-1 Chapter 15 Multiple Regression Model Building.

More on Inference.

Deep Feedforward Networks

Part Four ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA

Discrete Choice Models

More on Inference.

Rick Hoyle Duke Dept. of Psychology & Neuroscience

Microeconometric Modeling

Presentation transcript:

Mapping the WTP Distribution from Individual Level Parameter Estimates Matthew W. Winden University of Wisconsin - Whitewater WEA Conference – November 2012

Motivation  Heterogeneity exists in respondents’ preferences, WTP, and error variances within the population (Lanscar and Louviere 2008)  Traditional Models Used in Non-Market Valuation Impose Distributional Assumptions About Preference Heterogeneity in the Population (Train 2009, Revelt and Train 1999)  Top-Down Modeling (Mixed Logit, Latent Class Logit)  Misspecification May Lead to Bias in Parameter, Marginal Price (MP), and Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) Estimates  Leads to inefficient policy analysis and recommendations WEA November 10th, Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

Previous Work  Louviere et al. (2008) estimate individual level parameters using conditional logit estimator (no welfare analysis)  Convergence issue 1: Collinearity of attributes  Convergence issue 2: Perfect Predictability  Cognitive Burden (Number of Questions/Attributes)  Louviere et al. (2010)  Best-Worst Scaling As Solution  Individual Models = “Bottom-Up Modeling Approach” 3 WEA November 10th, 2012 Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up 4 WEA November 10th, 2012 Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

Contributions  Objective 1: Use Monte-Carlo Simulation to Provide Evidence of the Validity of Individual Level Estimation Techniques  Objective 2a: Estimate Traditional and Individual Level Models on a Stated Preference Dataset  Eliminates Collinearity as a Convergence Problem  Objective 2b: Estimate Traditional and Individual Level Models on a Revealed Preference Dataset  Objective 3: Use Individual Level Estimates to Demonstrate Potential Bias Resulting from Distributional Assumptions in Traditional Models 5 WEA November 10th, 2012 Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

Traditional Mixed Logit 6 WEA November 10th, 2012 Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

Individual Level Simulation & Estimation Strategy  3 Datasets (A, B, C)  Known parameter, attribute, and error distributions  100 respondents, 100 choice scenarios  Face 3 attributes (X1 & X2 - Uniform, X3 – Zero, Status Quo)  Face 3 alternatives (Respondent Specific Error Term to Each Alternative)  Have 3 individual specific betas for each of the three attributes  Simulation A  Beta 1 = Normal, Beta 2 = Normal, Beta 3 = Normal  Simulation B  Beta 1 = Normal, Beta 2 = Normal, Beta 3 = Uniform  Simulation C  Beta 1 = Normal, Beta 2 = Normal, Beta 3 = Exponential 7 WEA November 10th, 2012 Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

 Results:  LL for Individual Level Models Indicates Better Fit than Correctly Specified Mixed Logits  Comparing True X3 β Values, the Individual Level Model Performs Well Under All Distributional Specifications for the X3 Attribute 8 Individual Level Model Simulation SimulationML LLML+I LLML X3 βML+I X3 βTrue X3 β A B C WEA November 10th, 2012 Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

 Results: Table 34: Willingness-To-Pay Estimates ($/Gal) 9 Traditional and Individual Model Comparisons Conditional LogitMixed Logit 1Mixed Logit 2Individual AttributeMP (S.E.) MP ED (0.002) (0.003)0.086 NR (0.002)0.022 (0.002)0.024 (0.002)0.065 HH (0.002)0.034 (0.003)0.035 (0.003)0.094 ScenarioConditional LogitMixed Logit 1Mixed Logit 2Individual 10% Reduction (0.024)0.423 (0.025)0.449 (0.037) % Reduction (0.060)1.057 (0.062)1.12 (0.093)3.06 WEA November 10th, 2012 Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

Conclusions? (So-Far)  Result 1: Validity of Individual Estimation Demonstrated through Simulation  Kind Of...  Result 2: Individual Level Model Distributions, MPs, & WTPs Differ Significantly from Outcomes Using Traditional Models  Role of Including or Excluding Individuals with Statistically Significant (but possibly Lexicographic) Preferences on Estimates  Role of Including or Excluding Individuals with Statistically Insignificant values (Round to Zero?)  Result 3: Without knowing underlying distribution, may inadvertently choose incorrect mixing distribution based on LL 10 WEA November 10th, 2012 Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

Extensions  E1: True (Full) Monte-Carlo Simulation For Individual Level Specifcations  Vary Over Number Respondents, Number Choice Occasions, Number Attributes, Types of Distributions  E2: Comparison using Revealed Preference Dataset (Beach)  Introduced Potential Collinearity as a Convergence Issue  More Realistic Situation Under Which Heterogenity May Matter  E3: Develop Appropriate Significance Tests for Individual Level Models  E4: Scale Issues in Aggregation of Individual Respondents 11 WEA November 10th, 2012 Matthew Winden, UW - Whitewater

Thank You All For Your Time and Attention