IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/1905.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What's the Use? Welfare Estimates from Revealed Preference Models when Weak Complementarity Does Not Hold

Author

Listed:
  • Herriges, Joseph A.
  • Kling, Catherine L.
  • Phaneuf, Daniel J.

Abstract

In this paper we consider the theoretical and empirical ramifications of welfare measurement in revealed preference models when weak complementarity does not hold. In the context of a Kuhn-Tucker model of recreation demand we show that, while it is possible to estimate preferences that do not appear to exhibit weak complementarity, the calculation of welfare measurements from these models requires a cardinal interpretation of preferences that cannot be tested. Furthermore, we reiterate the under-appreciated fact that even traditional use value estimates require a cardinal restriction on preferences that, while often intuitive, also cannot be tested. We demonstrate empirically that the choice of restrictions can have significant ramifications, as use value estimates can vary widely based on the assumed preference structure.

Suggested Citation

  • Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2004. "What's the Use? Welfare Estimates from Revealed Preference Models when Weak Complementarity Does Not Hold," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1905, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:1905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/papers/paper_1905.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel J. Phaneuf & Catherine L. Kling & Joseph A. Herriges, 2000. "Estimation and Welfare Calculations in a Generalized Corner Solution Model with an Application to Recreation Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 83-92, February.
    2. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 1999. "Corner Solution Models of Recreation Demand: A Comparison of Competing Frameworks," Chapters, in: Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), Valuing Recreation and the Environment, chapter 6, pages 163-198, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Wales, T. J. & Woodland, A. D., 1983. "Estimation of consumer demand systems with binding non-negativity constraints," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 263-285, April.
    4. Bockstael, Nancy E & McConnell, Kenneth E, 1983. "Welfare Measurement in the Household Production Framework," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 806-814, September.
    5. Udo Ebert, 1998. "Evaluation of Nonmarket Goods: Recovering Unconditional Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 241-254.
    6. Flores, Nicholas E., 1996. "Reconsidering the Use of Hicks Neutrality to Recover Total Value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-64, July.
    7. W. Douglas Shaw & J. Scott Shonkwiler, 2000. "Brand Choice and Purchase Frequency Revisited: An Application to Recreation Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 515-526.
    8. Flores, Nicholas E., 2002. "Non-paternalistic altruism and welfare economics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 293-305, February.
    9. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 2003. "Recreation Demand Models," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10211, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Jeffrey T. LaFrance & W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "The Dual Structure of Incomplete Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(2), pages 262-274.
    11. Ronald Cummings & Glenn Harrison, 1995. "The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: A critical review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 225-247, April.
    12. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    13. Bockstael, N E & McConnell, K E, 1993. "Public Goods as Characteristics of Non-market Commodities," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(420), pages 1244-1257, September.
    14. Larson, Douglas M., 1991. "Recovering weakly complementary preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 97-108, September.
    15. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    17. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    18. Nancy E. Bockstael & Catherine L. Kling, 1988. "Valuing Environmental Quality: Weak Complementarity with Sets of Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 654-662.
    19. Neill, Jon R., 1988. "Another theorem on using market demands to determine willingness to pay for non-traded goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 224-232, June.
    20. Larson, Douglas M., 1992. "Further results on willingness to pay for nonmarket goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 101-122, September.
    21. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 1999. "Choice Set Definition Issues in a Kuhn-Tucker Model of Recreation Demand," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5222, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    22. Hausman, Jerry A, 1981. "Exact Consumer's Surplus and Deadweight Loss," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(4), pages 662-676, 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. Landry, Craig E. & Shonkwiler, J. Scott & Whitehead, John C., 2020. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Existence Values with recreation demand and contingent valuation data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. Ebert, Udo, 2007. "Revealed preference and household production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 276-289, March.
    3. Cloé Garnache & Scott M. Swinton & Joseph A. Herriges & Frank Lupi & R. Jan Stevenson, 2016. "Solving the Phosphorus Pollution Puzzle: Synthesis and Directions for Future Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1334-1359.
    4. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    5. Laura Blow & Richard Blundell, 2018. "A Nonparametric Revealed Preference Approach to Measuring the Value of Environmental Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 503-527, March.
    6. Tatsuo Suwa, 2008. "Estimation of the spatial substitution effect of national park trip demand: an application of the Kuhn-Tucker model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(4), pages 239-257, December.
    7. Castro, Marisol & Bhat, Chandra R. & Pendyala, Ram M. & Jara-Díaz, Sergio R., 2012. "Accommodating multiple constraints in the multiple discrete–continuous extreme value (MDCEV) choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 729-743.
    8. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
    9. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2005. "Weak complementarity, path independence, and the intuition of the Willig condition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 103-115, January.
    10. Jared C. Carbone & V. Kerry Smith, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services in general equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 15844, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    12. Tatsuo Suwa, 2008. "Estimation of the spatial substitution effect of national park trip demand: an application of the Kuhn-Tucker model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(4), pages 239-257, December.
    13. repec:clg:wpaper:2010-05 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. David G. Brown, 2008. "Falsifying the �Goodness� of Nonmarket Goods with Revealed Preference," Departmental Working Papers 2008-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    15. Kuriyama, Koichi & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro, 2020. "The value of leisure time of weekends and long holidays: The multiple discrete–continuous extreme value (MDCEV) choice model with triple constraints," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Kovacs, Kent F. & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Recreation at open space and residential development patterns," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 271502, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Bhattacharjee, Subhra & Kling, Catherine L. & Herriges, Joseph A., 2009. "Kuhn-Tucker Estimation of Recreation Demand – A Study of Temporal Stability," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49408, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. von Haefen, Roger H., 2007. "Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 15-31, July.
    20. Bhat, Chandra R., 2008. "The multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: Role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 274-303, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Dan Phaneuf, 2000. "Choice Set Definition Issues in a Kuhn-Tucker Model of Recreation Demand," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1821, Econometric Society.
    3. Bockstael, Nancy E. & Freeman III, A. Myrick, 2006. "Welfare Theory and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 12, pages 517-570, Elsevier.
    4. von Haefen, Roger H. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2003. "Estimating preferences for outdoor recreation:: a comparison of continuous and count data demand system frameworks," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 612-630, May.
    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. Alain Carpentier & Dominique Vermersch, 1997. "Measuring willingness to pay for drinking water quality using the econometrics of equivalence scales [Mesure du consentement à payer pour une qualité d'eau potable au moyen de la méthode économétri," Post-Print hal-02841037, HAL.
    7. Kovacs, Kent F. & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Recreation at open space and residential development patterns," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 271502, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
    9. Hanemann, Michael & Labandeira, Xavier & Labeaga, José M. & Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe, 2024. "Discrete-continuous models of residential energy demand: A comprehensive review," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    10. Ebert, Udo, 2007. "Revealed preference and household production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 276-289, March.
    11. Sánchez, José J. & Baerenklau, Ken & González-Cabán, Armando, 2016. "Valuing hypothetical wildfire impacts with a Kuhn–Tucker model of recreation demand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 63-70.
    12. von Haefen, Roger H., 2007. "Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 15-31, July.
    13. David G. Brown, 2009. "A Revealed Preference Feasibility Condition for Weak Complementarity," Departmental Working Papers 2009-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    14. Vasquez Lavin, Felipe & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "Functional Forms in Discrete/Continuous Choice Models With General Corner Solution," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7z25t659, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    15. von Haefen, Roger H., 2010. "Incomplete Demand Systems, Corner Solutions, and Welfare Measurement," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-15, February.
    16. Vasquez Lavin, Felipe & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "Functional Forms in Discrete/Continuous Choice Models With General Corner Solution," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7z25t659, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    17. 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.
    18. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2005. "Weak complementarity, path independence, and the intuition of the Willig condition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 103-115, January.
    19. Babatunde O. Abidoye & Joseph A. Herriges & Justin L. Tobias, 2012. "Controlling for Observed and Unobserved Site Characteristics in RUM Models of Recreation Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1070-1093.
    20. V. Smith & Mary Evans & H. Banzhaf & Christine Poulos, 2010. "Can Weak Substitution be Rehabilitated?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 203-221, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:isu:genres:1905. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.