Outline of the Class
Basic elements of the discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach
Theoretical foundation: the Random Utility Model Estimation using the Multinomial Logit model Designing a choice experiment: an example
from India Worked example: valuing sustainable salmon
farming in Canada using DCE and analysing heterogeneity with Latent Class Analysis (LCA)
1
Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE)
Like dichotomous choice CVM, based on random utility theory (RUM) and use survey data
However, it’s a multi-attribute approach with attributes (ideally) identified by stakeholders
One attribute serves as the payment vehicle (P) Choices presented as choice sets (cards)
developed by varying each attribute’s level Data analyzed using multinomial logit model Can create a statistical tool to evaluate stakeholder
group support for constructed scenarios (DSS)2
The Random Utility Model (RUM)
3
Estimation using the Multinomial Logit Model
4
D. Knowler, S. Nathan, N. Philcox, W. Delamare and W. HaiderSimon Fraser University, Canada
Designing a Choice Experiment: An example using the shrimp-mangrove system of West Bengal, India
5
Rapid rural appraisal
6
Discrete Choice Experiment - Attribute List
Mangrove area near villages Levels: 0%,+5%,+10%,+15%,+20%
No. of improved shrimp farms
Levels: 1000,2000,3000,4000,5000 Employment in fry collection
Levels: 20000,30000,40000,50000,60000
Income generation/micro-credit
Levels: 0%,5%,10%,15%,20% Household contribution to ‘Sundarbans Development Fund’
Levels: 0,5,10,25,50,100 Rs/yr
7
Discrete Choice Experiment – Choice Card
BLOCK 1 CARD 1 8
Training of enumerators
9
A few review questions …
What is the difference between (i) an attribute, (ii) an attribute level and (iii) a choice set?
Recall we discussed the use of the conventional logit/probit models under CVM. Why do we need to use a Multinomial Logit Model here?
10
Worked Example: Assessing Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Salmon Farming in British Columbia
Winnie Yip, Duncan Knowler and Wolfgang Haider
School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC
11
Canadian & BC Salmon Farming Industries
• Expansion of global Atlantic salmon production– Forecast production of 197,000 t by 2020 vs 109,000 t in 2009– Canada is 4th largest farmed salmon producer globally– BC produces 70% of Canadian farmed salmon; 85% exported
• Environmental concerns with conventional aquaculture– Threats to wild salmon stock– Nutrient loading and toxics
12
Alternatives to conventional salmon farming• Closed Containment Aquaculture (CCA)
DFO, 2010 Living Oceans Society, 2011
13
Another Option?
1. Fed Salmon
2. Shellfish (e.g. oysters, mussels)Consume the residual food & organic waste
from the salmon cages
3. Seaweeds (e.g. kelp)Consume inorganic wastes
from shellfish and invertebrates
4. Invertebrates(e.g. sea cucumbers)
Consume the heavier food & organic waste from the
salmon cages
• Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture
Chopin et al., 2010
14
Previous Studies & Research Questions• Several economic assessment studies (Ridler et al. 2007,
various FOC studies); also consumer perceptions & WTP for IMTA (Barrington et al., 2008; Shuve et al., 2009; Kitchen et al., 2011)
• Research questions address the gaps ..1. How do salmon consumers in the Pacific Northwest perceive
IMTA and CCA as alternatives to conventional salmon farming?2. What are these consumers willing to pay for salmon produced
by more sustainable aquaculture technologies?
15
Research Methods• Household survey (1631 respondents)
– sampled households in San Francisco, Seattle and Portland– administered online using market research firm– Screened for main grocery shopper & ate salmon at home in
last 12 months; final sample:67% females & 33% males; mostly over 25 years oldhave Bachelor’s degree & household income of > US$50,000
• Analysis– willingness to pay Discrete Choice Experiment– respondent heterogeneity Latent Class Analysis
16
Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE)• Designed to consider both a “true” shopping decision
environment and a broader social perspective
• Attributes used:– Species [Atlantic, Sockeye or King]– Production method [conventional, CCA,
IMTA or wild sockeye]– Product origin [Canada, USA, Norway, Chile]– Whether eco-certified [yes or no]– Price [various levels, by species]
17
Sample Choice Set
18
Information Treatments• Assumption: respondents do not know about IMTA and/or CCA
education needed
• Problem: possible biases– Sequence: IMTA first or CCA first?– Type of description: Favorable or Balanced?
• Solution: split sample with alternating sequence and extra information on negative aspects of each technology: “IMTA does not address escapes by farmed salmon and may not
significantly reduce the infestation of wild salmon by sea lice.”“CCA requires a significant amount of energy and could face issues related to land use and waste disposal.”
19
Dealing with Heterogeneity: Latent Classes• Preference heterogeneity was addressed using Latent
Class Analysis (LCA), which is an expanded, mixed logit form of the MNL model (Train, 2009)
• Assumes a heterogeneous sample made up of a number of relatively homogenous classes
• Assumes homogeneous preferences within and heterogeneous preferences between classes
• LCA defines the number of classes endogenously
20
Attitudes towards Aquaculture Alternatives• Respondent perceptions of:
IMTA CCA- 59% felt positive - 40% felt positive- 11% felt negative - 29% felt negative
• 63% agree more sustainable method should be adopted• 39% will buy more farmed salmon if IMTA or CCA exist• Favorable description > balanced description• When directly compared: 44% prefer IMTA > 16% prefer CCA
(IMTA more natural, sustainable & uses a mix of spp, whereas CCA better separates farmed spp)
21
Results for DCE and LCA• Coefficients for all DCE attributes significant at 5% level
using a linear model; interaction effects not significant
• Latent Class Analysis indicated 4 & 5 class models were unstable; based on BIC & AIC statistics the 3 class model preferred
• Classes were described as:– “Wild salmon lovers” (45%)– “Price-sensitive consumers” (29%)– “Sustainably farmed salmon supporters” (26%)
22
Part-worth Utility Results by Latent Class (I)
23
Part-worth Utility Results by Latent Class (II)
24
Mean WTP for Atlantic Salmon from IMTA and CCA vs. Conventional Salmon Farming, by Latent Class
All segments
3-class model
Wild salmon lovers
Price-sensitive
consumers
Sustainably farmed salmon
supporters
IMTA vs. Conventional
IMTA - -$4.48 $0.96 $2.00
Conventional farming - -$9.05 $0.46 $1.62
Difference (Marginal WTP) $1.07 $4.58 $0.50 $0.38
CCA vs. Conventional
CCA - -$8.90 $0.69 $1.50
Conventional farming - -$9.05 $0.46 $1.62
Difference (Marginal WTP) $0.43 $0.15 $0.23 -$0.11 *
Note: All prices expressed in USD dollar per lb of salmon; (*) Confidence interval is -0.68 to 0.46
Conclusions• Consumers want adoption of sustainable aquaculture
– stronger preference for IMTA over CCA (44% vs. 16%)– potential increase in overall demand for farmed salmon– LCA produces plausible interpretation of heterogeneity
• WTP for IMTA > WTP for CCA (9.8% vs. 3.9% premium)
• Education is necessary – 7% awareness of IMTA & 20% awareness of CCA– Information on technology limitations seems not to affect
WTP but further analysis is needed (G-MNL modeling ??)
26
Top Related