1 / 24

Choice Modeling Externalities: A Conjoint Analysis of Transportation Fuel Preferences

Choice Modeling Externalities: A Conjoint Analysis of Transportation Fuel Preferences. Matthew Winden and T.C. Haab , Ph.D. Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics The Ohio State University. Outline. Motivation Methodology Results Conclusions. Motivation.

kenaz
Download Presentation

Choice Modeling Externalities: A Conjoint Analysis of Transportation Fuel Preferences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Choice Modeling Externalities:A Conjoint Analysis of Transportation Fuel Preferences Matthew Winden and T.C. Haab, Ph.D. Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics The Ohio State University

  2. Outline • Motivation • Methodology • Results • Conclusions

  3. Motivation • Transportation Fuel Consumption Creates Large Externalities • Market Pricing Mechanism Has Failed -Public Goods Nature of Externalities • Government Correction Has Failed -Regressive Nature of Price Correction -Lack of Political Will Power

  4. Motivation • Correct price is necessary to achieve efficiency So, • What are the optimal levels (costs) of externalities to society? • Knowing allows internalization (MSC=MPC)

  5. Motivation • Are externality types valued differently? • Impacts on: • Human Health Risk Vs (2) Natural Resource Depletion Vs (3) Environmental Damage

  6. Motivation Attribute Examples of Attribute Components Env. Damage: Fish and Animal Populations Levels of Air and Water Pollution Nat. Res. Use: Extraction Rates and Stocks for Ores, Minerals, Oil, Natural Gas Hum. Health Risk: Incidence Rate of Asthma & Cancers

  7. Motivation • Goals: 1.) Establish Willingness-To-Pay estimates for reductions in damages 2.) Establish Marginal Price estimates for externality classes

  8. Methodology: Conjoint Analysis • Estimates the structure of preferences • Specify attributes & bundle into alternatives • Respondent chooses preferred alternative • Resultant choices allow for statistical inference

  9. Methodology: Conjoint Analysis • Each alternative represents potential fuel profile (i.e. mix of fuel types used) • Different profiles embody different levels of externalities (attributes) imposed on society • Impacts of profile measureable and capable of aggregation into an index for each externality

  10. Methodology: Conjoint Analysis Attribute Levels of Attribute Components Env. Damage 37.5, 45, 50, 55, 62.5 Nat. Res Use 37.5, 45, 50, 55, 62.5 Hum. Health Risk 37.5, 45, 50, 55, 62.5 Price ($/gallon) -10%, -5%, 0%, 5%, 10%

  11. Methodology: Conjoint Analysis • Based in RUM Framework • Respondent chooses 1 of 3 alternatives • Attributes: Environmental Damage Natural Resource Usage Human Health Risk Price

  12. Methodology: Conjoint Analysis

  13. Methodology: Conjoint Analysis Fuel Mix A $[GASPRICE] per gallon

  14. Methodology: Conjoint Analysis RUM framework Vij = V(xij, β) + εij i = individual j = alternative x = vector of attributes and characteristics ε = stochastic error term

  15. Methodology: Conjoint Analysis RUM Formalized: Linear and IID Vij = β0 + xijβ1 + (Mi - pij)β2 + εij M = Income p = price

  16. Methodology: Conjoint Analysis Probability of K chosen over j, for all j≠k Pr(dVij>0)= ϑ (Δ(x) β1 – Δ(p)β2) (See Kanninen 2007)

  17. Results Survey Representative Sample of 857 Ohio Adults Completed by 537 (62.5%), 532 useable; met criteria of (1) Adult Resident of Ohio (2) Estimate Vehicle MPG (3) Estimate price of fuel at last fill-up

  18. Results • Homeowner, Older, and Driver (more likely) • Price (self-reported) mean = $1.88 min = $1.00 max = $2.99 • Attribute means 49.9(ED), 50.2(NR), 50.3(HH)

  19. Results AttributeConditional Logit Parameter Estimates Price -1.722* Env. Damage -0.099 Nat. Res. Use -0.427* Hum. Health Risk 0.142 (Environmental Damage)2 -0.0003 (Nat. Res. Use)2 0.003* (Hum. Health Risk)2 -0.002* EnvDam × NatRes 0.003 NatRes × HumHea 0.002 HumHea × EnvDam 0.001 EnvDam×NatRes×HumHea -0.0001

  20. Results Alternative (Difference from Current) WTP ($/Alternative) 10% Reduction in Each Attribute $0.84/gal 25% Reduction in Each Attribute $2.98/gal Attribute MP ($/Alternative) Environmental Damage Reduction $0.030/gal Natural Resource Use Reduction $0.035/gal Human Health Risk Reduction $0.036/gal

  21. Conclusions • Demand (WTP) for reduction in externalities related to transportation fuel usage exists • Current (baseline situation) reveals one class of externality is not viewed as more important • Starting point for policy discussions

  22. Limitations • Price increase still necessary (political will) • Less impact, result in more driving? • Do respondents accurately understand and value indexes? • Accurate measurement and combination of attribute components into indexes • Uncertainty of externality impacts

  23. Future Research • Income element of utility function may be non-linear • Fatigue/Learning Effects • Exploration of demographic differences (mixed logit) • Relaxation of IIA (multinomial probit)

  24. Special Thanks • National Science Foundation • Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics: The Ohio State University • Wisconsin Economic Association

More Related