Abstract
Different approaches to modelling the distribution of WTP are compared using stated preference data on Tanzanian Clinical Officers’ job choices and mixed logit models. The standard approach of specifying the distributions of the coefficients and deriving WTP as the ratio of two coefficients (estimation in preference space) is compared to specifying the distributions for WTP directly at the estimation stage (estimation in WTP space). The models in preference space fit the data better than the corresponding models in WTP space although the difference between the best fitting models in the two estimation regimes is minimal. Moreover, the willingness to pay estimates derived from the preference space models turn out to be very high for many of the job attributes. The results suggest that sensitivity testing using a variety of model specifications, including estimation in WTP space, is recommended when using mixed logit models to estimate willingness to pay distributions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schumann H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel of contingent valuation. Federal Register, vol 10, pp 4601–4614
Balcombe K, Bailey A, Chalak A, Fraser I (2008) Modifying willingness to pay estimates where respondents mis-report their preferences. Appl Econ Lett 15(5): 327–330
Balcombe K, Chalak A, Fraser I (2009) Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation. J Environ Econ Manag 57(2): 226–237
Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2007) How much is too much? An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, starting point and the choice bid vectors in choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 40(2): 165–176
Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NS (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19(2): 173–210
Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, Wasi N (2010) The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Market Sci 29(3): 393–421
Greene W, Hensher D (2010) Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models. Transportation 37(3): 413–428
Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, Hossain I, Louviere J (2006) What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ 25(3): 520–537
Hanley N, Ryan M, Wright R (2003) Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics. Health Econ 12(1): 3–16
Hole AR (2007) Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J 7(3): 388–401
Hole AR (2008) Modelling heterogeneity in patients’ preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. J Health Econ 27(4): 1078–1094
King MT, Hall J, Lancsar E, Fiebig D, Hossain I, Louviere J, Reddel H, Jenkins CR (2007) Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 16(7): 703–717
Kolstad JR (2011) How to make rural jobs more attractive to health workers. Findings from a discrete choice experiment in Tanzania. Health Econ 20(2): 196–211
Lancsar E, Hall J, King M, Kenny P, Louviere J (2007) Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. Respirology 12(1): 127–136
Loomes G (2001) The use of cost-effectiveness thresholds outside the health sector. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N (eds) Cost-effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. Office of Health Economics, London
Louviere JJ, Carson RT, Ainslie A, Cameron TA, Deshazo JR, Hensher DA, Kohn R, Marley T (2002) Dissecting the random component of utility. Market Lett 13(3): 177–193
McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL for discrete response. J Appl Econom 15(5): 447–470
Meijer E, Rouwendal J (2006) Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients. J Appl Econom 21(2): 227–244
Negrín MA, Pinilla J, León CJ (2008) Willingness to pay for alternative policies for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Health Econ Policy Law 3(03): 257–275
Oliver A, Healey A, Donaldson C (2002) Choosing the method to match the perspective: economic assessment and its implications for health-services efficiency. Lancet 359(9319): 1771–1774
Johnson S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB (2009) Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ 28(4): 894–901
Paterson RW, Boyle KJ, Parmeter CF, Neumann JE, Civita PD (2008) Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation. Health Econ 17(12): 1363–1377
Regier DA, Ryan M, Phimister E, Marra CA (2009) Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: An application to genetic testing. J Health Econ 28(3): 598–610
Ryan M (2004) A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ 13(3): 291–296
Scarpa R, Thiene M, Train K (2008) Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Am J Agric Econ 90(4): 994–1010
Scott A (2001) Eliciting GPs’ preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. J Health Econ 20: 329–347
Sonnier G, Ainslie A, Otter T (2007) Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quant Market Econ 5(3): 313–331
Thiene M, Scarpa R (2009) Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models. Environ Resour Econ 44(3): 379–395
Train KB (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Train KE, Weeks M (2005) Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Application of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–16
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hole, A.R., Kolstad, J.R. Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment. Empir Econ 42, 445–469 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-011-0500-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-011-0500-1