[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt9v17r715.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Water Quality on Southern California Beach Recreation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Hilger, James
  • Hanemann, W. Michael
Abstract
This paper uses a finite mixture logit (FML) model to investigate the heterogeneity of preferences of beach users for water quality at beaches in Southern California. The results are compared with conventional approaches based conditional logit (CL) and random parameters logit (RPL). The FML approach captures variation in preferences by modeling individual recreator choices using a mixture of several distinct preference groups, where group membership is a function of individual characteristic and seasonal variables. The FML parameter estimates are used to calculate welfare measures for improvements in beach quality through a reduction of water pollution. The FML segment specific welfare measures bound the traditional CL and RPL mean welfare estimates, and have the advantage of highlighting the distribution of the population sample’s preferences. Analysis of beach recreation site choice data indicates the existence of four representative preference groups within the survey respondent sample. As a result, willingness to pay measures for improvements in water quality and other beach site attribute changes can be weighted across individuals to calculate the distribution of individual welfare measures. One group of recreators is characterized as people who go to the beach and engage in water recreation with children. An interesting finding is that this group has a lower meanWTP for improving water quality than groups who go without children. This may well be an example of cognitive dissonance: parents find they go to the beach more often than others who don’t have children, since that keeps the children occupied and happy, and they adapt their perception of the water quality to be consistent with their behavior. Previous environmental and resource economic applications of the FML have been limited to applications with small choice sets (6) and group membership variables (4). This paper extends the FML model through the estimation of a large (51) choice set with 9 membership variables. This application is the first to incorporate seasonal variables into the group membership function to capture seasonal heterogeneity. Estimated welfare changes are calculated using the compensating variation measure for several hypothetical beach closure and water quality degradation scenarios. Estimation results indicate that the FML welfare estimates differ from those calculated using the traditional logit or RPL models. The FML model sheds light onto which subsets of beach recreators are likely to be impacted by different scenarios of resource change.

Suggested Citation

  • Hilger, James & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "The Impact of Water Quality on Southern California Beach Recreation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9v17r715, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt9v17r715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9v17r715.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heckman, James & Singer, Burton, 1984. "A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 271-320, March.
    2. Ruud, Paul A., 1991. "Extensions of estimation methods using the EM algorithm," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 305-341, September.
    3. J. Morgan Jones & Jane T. Landwehr, 1988. "Removing Heterogeneity Bias from Logit Model Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 41-59.
    4. Peter Arcidiacono & John Bailey Jones, 2003. "Finite Mixture Distributions, Sequential Likelihood and the EM Algorithm," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 933-946, May.
    5. George R. Parsons, 1991. "A Note on Choice of Residential Location in Travel Cost Demand Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(3), pages 360-364.
    6. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1982. "Applied Welfare Analysis with Qualitative Response Models," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7982f0k8, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    7. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    9. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    10. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    11. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    12. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    13. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    14. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    15. Mohn, Craig & Hanemann, W. Michael & Pendleton, Linwood & Layton, David, 2003. "Shifting Sands: A Preliminary Exploration of Seasonal Variation in Preferences for Beaches," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0qd37084, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    16. Wedel, M, et al, 1993. "A Latent Class Poisson Regression Model for Heterogeneous Count Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 397-411, Oct.-Dec..
    17. Kamel Jedidi & Harsharanjeet S. Jagpal & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 1997. "Finite-Mixture Structural Equation Models for Response-Based Segmentation and Unobserved Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 39-59.
    18. Bill Provencher & Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Richard C. Bishop, 2002. "A Finite Mixture Logit Model of Recreational Angling with Serially Correlated Random Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1066-1075.
    19. Beard, T Randolph & Caudill, Steven B & Gropper, Daniel M, 1991. "Finite Mixture Estimation of Multiproduct Cost Functions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(4), pages 654-664, November.
    20. Nick Hanley & W. Douglass Shaw & Robert E. Wright (ed.), 2003. "The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2712.
    21. Moshe Ben-Akiva & Joffre Swait, 1986. "The Akaike Likelihood Ratio Index," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 133-136, May.
    22. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1982. "Applied Welfare Analysis with Qualitative Response Models," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7982f0k8, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    23. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Boudreaux, Greg & Lupi, Frank & Sohngen, Brent & Xu, Alan, 2023. "Measuring beachgoer preferences for avoiding harmful algal blooms and bacterial warnings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hilger, James & Hanemann, Michael, 2006. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Water Quality: A Finite Mixture Model of Beach Recreation in Southern California," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0565c0b2, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    2. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & van Ommeren, Jos N. & Koster, Paul & Rietveld, Piet, 2016. "Not fully charged: Welfare effects of tax incentives for employer-provided electric cars," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-19.
    5. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2010. "Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 205-216, August.
    6. Nguyen Tien Thong & Hans Stubbe Solgaard & Wolfgang Haider & Eva Roth & Lars Ravn†Jonsen, 2018. "Using labeled choice experiments to analyze demand structure and market position among seafood products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 163-189, March.
    7. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    8. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2004. "Comparing Individual-Specific Benefit Estimates for Public Goods: Finite Versus Continuous Mixing in Logit Models," Working Papers 2004.132, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. Kuriyama, Koichi & Michael Hanemann, W. & Hilger, James R., 2010. "A latent segmentation approach to a Kuhn-Tucker model: An application to recreation demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 209-220, November.
    10. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Robinson, Jackie & Kaneko, Shinji & Komatsu, Satoru, 2013. "Estimating the value of economic benefits associated with adaptation to climate change in a developing country: A case study of improvements in tropical cyclone warning services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 117-128.
    11. William Breffle & Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher, 2011. "A Joint Latent-Class Model: Combining Likert-Scale Preference Statements With Choice Data to Harvest Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, September.
    12. Alexandros Dimitropoulos & Jos N. van Ommeren & Paul Koster & Piet Rietveld†, 2014. "Welfare Effects of Distortionary Tax Incentives under Preference Heterogeneity: An Application to Employer-provided Electric Cars," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-064/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    14. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    15. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2006. "Using Continuous and Finite Mixture Models to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in a group of Outdoor Recreationalists," Working Papers 0602, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    16. Zhenshan Chen & Stephen K. Swallow & Ian T. Yue, 2020. "Non-participation and Heterogeneity in Stated: A Double Hurdle Latent Class Approach for Climate Change Adaptation Plans and Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 35-67, September.
    17. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    18. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    19. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Kermagoret, Charlène & Levrel, Harold & Carlier, Antoine & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2016. "Individual preferences regarding environmental offset and welfare compensation: a choice experiment application to an offshore wind farm project," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 230-240.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt9v17r715. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.