IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v27y2004i3p297-311.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing Heterogeneous Preferences Using Parametric Extended Spike Models

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Nahuelhual-Muñoz
  • Maria Loureiro
  • John Loomis

Abstract

Some public programs simultaneously provide a mix of non-rejectable public goods and public bads. Consequently, some individuals would pay for the program, while others might instead need to becompensated. In this paper we estimate twoparametric extended spike models that accountfor positive and negative preferences as wellas indifference for the public good. Weillustrate the models using data on valuationof prescribed burning of underbrush in forests,which reduces the risk of catastrophicwildfires but also produces smoke emissions(the public bad). We compare the two empiricalapproaches to estimate willingness to pay (WTP)for the program and contrast these results withthose obtained from modeling specificationsthat only account for non-negative preferences.Substantial differences in public net benefitswere found between the most flexible parametricextended spike model and the simple spike modelwhere negative responses were coded as zero anda standard binary logit of only positivebidders. The results from the extended spikemodels demonstrated that accounting forindifference and negative values towards thepublic good resulted in substantially lowerwillingness to pay estimates. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Nahuelhual-Muñoz & Maria Loureiro & John Loomis, 2004. "Addressing Heterogeneous Preferences Using Parametric Extended Spike Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 297-311, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:27:y:2004:i:3:p:297-311
    DOI: 10.1023/B:EARE.0000017655.38664.ce
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/B:EARE.0000017655.38664.ce
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/B:EARE.0000017655.38664.ce?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-443, April.
    2. Werner, Megan, 1999. "Allowing for Zeros in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent-Valuation Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 17(4), pages 479-486, October.
    3. An, Mark Y. & Roberto Ayala, 1995. "A Mixture Model of Willingness to Pay Distributions," Working Papers 95-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    4. Salvador Del Saz-Salazar & Leandro Garcia-Menendez, 2001. "Willingness to Pay for Environmental Improvements in a Large City Evidence from The Spike Model and From a Non-Parametric Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(2), pages 103-112, October.
    5. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    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. R. Martínez-Espiñeira, 2007. "‘Adopt a Hypothetical Pup’: A Count Data Approach to the Valuation of Wildlife," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(2), pages 335-360, June.
    2. Broberg, Thomas & Brännlund, Runar, 2006. "The value of preserving the four large predators in Sweden: Regional differences considered," Umeå Economic Studies 671, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    3. Lee, Gi-Eu & Loveridge, Scott & Joshi, Satish, 2017. "Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 328-336.
    4. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2019. "Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-85.
    5. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    6. Loomis, John B. & Le, Hung Trong & Gonzales-Caban, Armando, 2005. "Testing transferability of willingness to pay for forest fire prevention among three states of California, Florida and Montana," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 125-140, December.

    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. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    2. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    3. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Bengt Kriström & Fiona Watson, 2009. "Accounting for Negative, Zero and Positive Willingness to Pay for Landscape Change in a National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zawojska, Ewa & Meade, Norman & da Motta, Ronaldo Seroa & Welsh, Mike & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2024. "On the inference about a willingness-to-pay distribution using contingent valuation data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    5. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2004. "Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 331-363, March.
    6. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Seung-Jun Kwak & Tai-Yoo Kim, 2001. "Modelling willingness to pay responses from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys with zero observations," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 523-529.
    7. Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.
    8. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, 2003. "The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 461-476, August.
    9. Ovaskainen, Ville & Kniivila, Matleena, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1-16.
    10. Alfred Appiah & Wiktor Adamowicz & Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Diane Dupont, 2019. "Reliability of Drinking Water: Risk Perceptions and Economic Value," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 1-27, April.
    11. Cho, Sangmin & Kim, Jihyo & Park, Hi-Chun & Heo, Eunnyeong, 2015. "Incentives for waste cooking oil collection in South Korea: A contingent valuation approach," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 63-71.
    12. Madureira, Lívia & Nunes, Luis C. & Borges, José G. & Falcão, André O., 2011. "Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: A Portuguese case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 399-414.
    13. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    14. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Antonia Heinke & Alwin Keil & Nguyen Minh Duc & Pham Van Dinh & Camille Saint-Macary & Manfred Zeller, 2008. "Landslides in mountainous regions of Northern Vietnam: Causes, protection strategies and the assessment of economic losses," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 298/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    15. Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John B. & Nahuelhual, Laura, 2004. "A comparison of a parametric and a non-parametric method to value a non-rejectable public good," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 61-74, September.
    16. Abay Asfaw & Joachim Braun, 2005. "Innovations in Health Care Financing: New Evidence on the Prospect of Community Health Insurance Schemes in the Rural Areas of Ethiopia," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 241-253, September.
    17. Catherine M.H. Keske & Greta Lohman & John B. Loomis, 2013. "Do Respondents Report Willingness-to-Pay on a per Person or per Group Basis? A High Mountain Recreation Example," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 133-145, February.
    18. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Ben Gilbert & Alexander James & Jason F. Shogren, 2018. "Corporate apology for environmental damage," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 51-81, February.
    20. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.

    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:kap:enreec:v:27:y:2004:i:3:p:297-311. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.