IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20100014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biases in Willingness-To-Pay Measures from Multinomial Logit Estimates due to Unobserved Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent van den Berg

    (VU University Amsterdam)

  • Eric Kroes

    (VU University Amsterdam)

  • Erik T. Verhoef

    (VU University Amsterdam)

Abstract

It is a common finding in empirical discrete choice studies that the estimated mean relative values of the coefficients (i.e. WTP's) from multinomial logit (MNL) estimations differ from those calculated using mixed logit estimations, where the mixed logit has the better statistical fit. However, it is less clear under exactly what circumstances such differences arise, whether they are important, and if they can be seen as biases in the WTP estimates from MNL. We use datasets created by Monte Carlo simulation to test, in a controlled environment, the effects of the different possible sources of bias on the accuracy of WTP's estimated by MNL. Consistent with earlier research we find that random unobserved heterogeneity in the marginal utilities does not in itself biases the MNL estimates. Furthermore, whether or not the unobserved heterogeneity is symmetrically shaped also does not affect the accuracy of the WTP estimates of MNL. However, we find that if two heterogeneous marginal utilities are correlated then the WTP's from MNL may be biased. If the correlation between the marginal utilities is negative, then the bias in the MNL estimate is negative, whereas if the correlation is positive the bias is positive.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent van den Berg & Eric Kroes & Erik T. Verhoef, 2010. "Biases in Willingness-To-Pay Measures from Multinomial Logit Estimates due to Unobserved Heterogeneity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-014/3, Tinbergen Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20100014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/10014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhat, Chandra R., 1998. "Accommodating flexible substitution patterns in multi-dimensional choice modeling: formulation and application to travel mode and departure time choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 455-466, September.
    2. Luis I. Rizzi & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2006. "Road Safety Valuation under a Stated Choice Framework," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 40(1), pages 69-94, January.
    3. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    4. Chandra R. Bhat, 2000. "Incorporating Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Urban Work Travel Mode Choice Modeling," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 228-238, May.
    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. Martine AUDIBERT & Yong HE & Jacky MATHONNAT, 2017. "What does demand heterogeneity tell us about health care provider choice in rural China?," Working Papers P193, FERDI.
    2. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2013. "Multinomial and Mixed Logit Modeling in the Presence of Heterogeneity: A Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Provider Choice in Rural China," Working Papers halshs-00846085, HAL.
    3. Stefano Mainardi, 2021. "Preference heterogeneity, neighbourhood effects and basic services: logit kernel models for farmers’ climate adaptation in Ethiopia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 6869-6912, May.
    4. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2013. "Multinomial and Mixed Logit Modeling in the Presence of Heterogeneity: A Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Provider Choice in Rural China," CERDI Working papers halshs-00846085, HAL.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    6. Martine AUDIBERT & Yong HE & Jacky MATHONNAT, 2017. "What does demand heterogeneity tell us about health care provider choice in rural China?," Working Papers P193, FERDI.

    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. Carlos Pestana Barros & Isabel Proenca & Joao Ricardo Faria & Luis Gil-Alana, 2007. "Are Usa Citizens At Risk Of Terrorism In Europe?," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 495-507.
    2. Giovanni B Concu, 2009. "Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 199-212, January.
    3. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    4. José-Benito Pérez-López & Margarita Novales & Francisco-Alberto Varela-García & Alfonso Orro, 2020. "Residential Location Econometric Choice Modeling with Irregular Zoning: Common Border Spatial Correlation Metric," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 785-802, September.
    5. Munizaga, Marcela A. & Heydecker, Benjamin G. & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2000. "Representation of heteroskedasticity in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 219-240, April.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson, 2003. "The demand for intercity public transport: the case of business passengers," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 41-50.
    7. Can, Vo Van, 2013. "Estimation of travel mode choice for domestic tourists to Nha Trang using the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 149-159.
    8. Stephane Hess & Denis Bolduc & John Polak, 2010. "Random covariance heterogeneity in discrete choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 391-411, May.
    9. Kim, Sooil & Haab, Timothy C., 2005. "Generalized Estimation Methods for Non-i.i.d. Binary Data: An Application to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19138, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2003. "Policy implications and analysis of the determinants of travel mode choice: an application of choice experiments to metropolitan Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 603-619, October.
    11. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Modeling Indifference and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0327, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    12. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    13. Elisabeth M. Schaffer & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Stephanie B. Wheeler & Dalsone Kwarisiima & Gabriel Chamie & Harsha Thirumurthy, 2020. "Promoting HIV Testing by Men: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Preferences and Predict Uptake of Community-based Testing in Uganda," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 413-432, June.
    14. Regier, Dean A. & Ryan, Mandy & Phimister, Euan & Marra, Carlo A., 2009. "Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: An application to genetic testing," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 598-610, May.
    15. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    16. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    18. Joshua Sikhu Okonya & Netsayi Noris Mudege & Anne M. Rietveld & Anastase Nduwayezu & Déo Kantungeko & Bernadette Marie Hakizimana & John Njuki Nyaga & Guy Blomme & James Peter Legg & Jürgen Kroschel, 2019. "The Role of Women in Production and Management of RTB Crops in Rwanda and Burundi: Do Men Decide, and Women Work?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-15, August.
    19. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 1999. "Controlling for Correlation Across Choice Occasions and Sites in a Repeated Mixed Logit Model of Recreation Demand," Western Region Archives 321717, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete Choice; Biases in WTP's; Multinomial Logit; Correlated Heterogeneous Marginal Utilities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    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:tin:wpaper:20100014. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.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.