IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-03-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Meta Analysis in Model Implementation: Choice Sets and the Valuation of Air Quality Improvements

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, V. Kerry
  • Banzhaf, H. Spencer

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

We document the sensitivity of welfare estimates derived from discrete choice models to assumptions about the choice set. Such assumptions can affect welfare estimates through both the estimated parameters of the model and, conditional on the parameters, the substitution among alternatives. Our analysis involves estimates of the benefits of air quality improvements in Los Angeles based on discrete choices of neighborhood and housing. We further illustrate the use of meta analysis to document and summarize voluminous information derived from repeated sensitivity analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, V. Kerry & Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2003. "Meta Analysis in Model Implementation: Choice Sets and the Valuation of Air Quality Improvements," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-61, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-03-61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-03-61.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raymond B. Palmquist & Adis Israngkura, 1999. "Valuing Air Quality With Hedonic and Discrete Choice Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1128-1133.
    2. George R. Parsons & GAndrew J. Plantinga & GKevin J. Boyle, 2000. "Narrow Choice Sets in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 86-99.
    3. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 2001. "Discrete Choice with Social Interactions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(2), pages 235-260.
    4. Leamer, Edward E, 1983. "Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 31-43, March.
    5. Aviv Nevo, 2003. "New Products, Quality Changes, and Welfare Measures Computed from Estimated Demand Systems," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 266-275, May.
    6. Steven Berry & James Levinsohn & Ariel Pakes, 2004. "Differentiated Products Demand Systems from a Combination of Micro and Macro Data: The New Car Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(1), pages 68-105, February.
    7. Bayer, Patrick & Keohane, Nathaniel & Timmins, Christopher, 2009. "Migration and hedonic valuation: The case of air quality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 1-14, July.
    8. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1999. "Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(1), pages 62-72, February.
    9. Kenneth E. Train & Daniel L. McFadden & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 1987. "The Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 109-123, Spring.
    10. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2006. "Property Value Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 16, pages 763-819, Elsevier.
    11. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2002. "Quality Adjustment for Spatially-Delineated Public Goods: Theory and Application to Cost-of-Living Indices in Los Angeles," Discussion Papers 10833, Resources for the Future.
    12. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 2002. "A Multinomial-Choice Model of Neighborhood Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 298-303, May.
    13. Quigley, John M., 2006. "Urban Economics," Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy, Working Paper Series qt0jr0p2tk, Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy.
    14. Quigley, John M., 1985. "Consumer choice of dwelling, neighborhood and public services," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 41-63, February.
    15. Haab, Timothy C. & Hicks, Robert L., 1997. "Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneity in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 127-147, October.
    16. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    17. Amil Petrin, 2002. "Quantifying the Benefits of New Products: The Case of the Minivan," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 705-729, August.
    18. Patrick Bayer & Robert McMillan & Kim Rueben, 2004. "An Equilibrium Model of Sorting in an Urban Housing Market," NBER Working Papers 10865, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Chattopadhyay, Sudip, 2000. "The effectiveness of McFaddens's nested logit model in valuing amenity improvement," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 23-43, January.
    20. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
    21. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    22. Cropper, Maureen L, et al, 1993. "Valuing Product Attributes Using Single Market Data: A Comparison of Hedonic and Discrete Choice Approaches," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(2), pages 225-232, May.
    23. George R. Parsons & A. Brett Hauber, 1998. "Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 32-48.
    24. Poterba, James M, 1992. "Taxation and Housing: Old Questions, New Answers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 237-242, May.
    25. George R. Parsons & Mary Jo Kealy, 1992. "Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(1), pages 93-106.
    26. Daniel McFadden, 1996. "Computing Willingness-to-Pay in Random Utility Models," Working Papers _011, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Constant Tra, 2009. "Title: A Discrete Choice Equilibrium Approach to Valuing Large Environmental Changes," Working Papers 0922, University of Nevada, Las Vegas , Department of Economics.
    2. Hicks, Robert L. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2010. "Spatial regulations and endogenous consideration sets in fisheries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 117-134, April.
    3. Li, Lianhua & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre, 2015. "The effect of choice set misspecification on welfare measures in random utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 71-92.
    4. 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.
    5. Yannis M. Ioannides, 2010. "Neighborhood Effects and Housing," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0747, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    6. Elenna R. Dugundji & László Gulyás, 2013. "Structure and emergence in a nested logit model with social and spatial interactions," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 151-203, June.
    7. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2006. "Property Value Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 16, pages 763-819, Elsevier.
    8. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2002. "Quality Adjustment for Spatially-Delineated Public Goods: Theory and Application to Cost-of-Living Indices in Los Angeles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-10-, Resources for the Future.
    9. Stafford, Tess M., 2018. "Accounting for outside options in discrete choice models: An application to commercial fishing effort," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 159-179.
    10. Tra, Constant I., 2010. "A discrete choice equilibrium approach to valuing large environmental changes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-2), pages 183-196, February.
    11. Walker, Joan L. & Ehlers, Emily & Banerjee, Ipsita & Dugundji, Elenna R., 2011. "Correcting for endogeneity in behavioral choice models with social influence variables," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 362-374, May.
    12. Patrick Bayer & Fernando Ferreira & Robert McMillan, 2007. "A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(4), pages 588-638, August.
    13. Wong, Maisy, 2010. "The Relationship between Marginal Willingness-to-Pay in the Hedonic and Discrete Choice Models," MPRA Paper 51218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. 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.
    15. Rachel Griffith & Lars Nesheim & Martin O'Connell, 2018. "Income effects and the welfare consequences of tax in differentiated product oligopoly," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(1), pages 305-341, March.
    16. Mario du Preez & Michael C. Sale, 2012. "Determining the impact of low-cost housing development on nearby property prices using discrete choice analysis," Working Papers 265, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    17. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2007. "Discrete Choice Models With Multiple Unobserved Choice Characteristics," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1159-1192, November.
    18. Satoshi Nakano & Kazuhiko Nishimura, 2013. "Welfare gain from quality and price development in the Japan’s LCD TV market," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 889-908, September.
    19. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    20. Ziying Yang & Manping Tang, 2019. "Welfare Analysis of Government Subsidy Programs for Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and New Energy Vehicles in China," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(2), pages 911-937, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Meta analysis; random utility model; choice set; air quality; housing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • R21 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - Housing Demand

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-03-61. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.