IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/wjagec/32452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Importance Of Functional Form In The Estimation Of Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Kling, Catherine L.

Abstract

Researchers have recognized the central role that the choice of functional form has on estimated of consumer surplus. The purpose of this paper is to quantify the magnitude of errors which might arise from the use of incorrect functional forms. It describes a simulation experiment where estimated consumer surplus, based on simulated data sets, is compared with consumer surplus computed directly from the simulate data. The errors resulting from the use of mismatching functional forms range from approximately 4% to 107%.

Suggested Citation

  • Kling, Catherine L., 1989. "The Importance Of Functional Form In The Estimation Of Welfare," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(01), pages 1-7, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:wjagec:32452
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.32452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/32452/files/14010168.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.32452?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kling, Catherine L., 1988. "Comparing welfare estimates of environmental quality changes from recreation demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 331-340, September.
    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. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
    2. Pattiz, Brian David, 2009. "Count regression models for recreation demand: an application to Clear Lake," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800002092, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Silvia Ferrini & Carlo Fezzi, 2012. "Generalized Additive Models for Nonmarket Valuation via Revealed or Stated Preference Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 782-802.
    4. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Crooker, John R., 2007. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare with Measurement Error in Prices: Techniques for Non-Market Resource Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 239-252, October.
    6. Phaneuf, Daniel James, 1997. "Generalized corner solution models in recreation demand," ISU General Staff Papers 1997010108000013022, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. John Crooker & Joseph Herriges, 2004. "Parametric and Semi-Nonparametric Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay in the Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(4), pages 451-480, April.
    8. Cati Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2014-07, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    9. Søren B. Olsen & Cathrine U. Jensen & Toke E. Panduro, 2020. "Modelling Strategies for Discontinuous Distance Decay in Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 351-386, February.
    10. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Antoni Riera Font, 2008. "The implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2008/6, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    11. Crooker, John & Kling, Catherine L., 2000. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare Measures: A New Tool for Nonmarket Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 145-161, March.
    12. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Torres, Cati, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2011-02, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    13. Chotikapanich, Duangkamon & Griffiths, William E., 1998. "Carnarvon Gorge: a comment on the sensitivity of consumer surplus estimation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(3), pages 1-13.
    14. Chan, Nathan & Wichman, Casey, 2018. "Valuing Nonmarket Impacts of Climate Change: From Reduced Form to Welfare," RFF Working Paper Series 18-06, Resources for the Future.
    15. C. Woo & J. Zarnikau & E. Kollman, 2012. "Exact welfare measurement for double-log demand with partial adjustment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 171-180, February.

    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. Ju-Chin Huang & V. Kerry Smith, 1998. "Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 186-202.
    2. Feinerman, Eli & Fleischer, Aliza & Simhon, Avi, 2004. "Distributional Welfare Impacts of Public Spending: The Case of Urban versus National Parks," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Guy Garrod & Ken Willis, 1992. "The amenity value of woodland in Great Britain: A comparison of economic estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(4), pages 415-434, July.
    4. Scrogin, David & Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K., 2000. "Policy Changes And The Demand For Lottery-Rationed Big Game Hunting Licenses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    6. Wiktor Adamowicz & Sarah Jennings & Alison Coyne, 1989. "A Sequential Choice Alternative to the Travel Cost Model," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 37(4), pages 1305-1305, December.
    7. Yoder, Jonathan K. & Ohler, Adrienne M. & Chouinard, Hayley H., 2014. "What floats your boat? Preference revelation from lotteries over complex goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 412-430.
    8. Chen, Min, 2009. "Does Economic Endogeneity of Site Facilities in Recreation Demand Models Lead to Statistical Endogeneity?," Graduate Research Master's Degree Plan B Papers 55808, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    9. Larson, Douglas M. & Lew, Daniel K. & Shaikh, Sabina L., 2002. "Estimating The Opportunity Cost Of Recreation Time In An Integrable 2-Constraint Count Demand Model," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19600, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2001. "A Travel Cost Study of Duck Hunting in the Upper South East of South Australia," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 126064, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Jennings, Sarah & Coyne, Alison, 1990. "A Sequential Choice Model Of Recreation Behavior," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 15(01), pages 1-9, July.
    12. Scrogin, David, 2005. "Lottery-rationed public access under alternative tariff arrangements: changes in quality, quantity, and expected utility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 189-211, July.
    13. Yeh, Chia-Yu & Sohngen, Brent & Habb, Timothy, 2001. "Single Versus Multiple Objective Recreation Trips: A Split-Sample Multi-Site Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20444, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Larson, Douglas & Lew, Daniel & Loomis, John, 1999. "Are Revealed Preference Measures of Quality Change Benefits Statistically Significant?," Western Region Archives 321712, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    15. Nick Hanley, 1992. "Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 33-59, January.
    16. Phaneuf, Daniel James, 1997. "Generalized corner solution models in recreation demand," ISU General Staff Papers 1997010108000013022, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

    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:ags:wjagec:32452. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.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.