Table 6

Heterogeneity in Willingness to Pay (WTP) through Estimation Methods in Discounted Mixed Logit (D-MXL), Discounted Logit-Mixed Logit (D-LML), and Discounted Latent Class (D-LCM) Models in a WTP Space

Estimation MethodScenario 1 (Status Quo Levels in 2050 and No Policy)Scenario 2 (Current Levels in 2050 and C/T Policy)Scenario 3 (Current Levels in 2050 and SWI Policy)
D-MXL (r = 0.491)
Mean116.4***115.5***149.9***
(1.38)(1.73)(1.79)
Low–233.3***–210.1***–186.0***
(2.72)(2.82)(2.83)
High400.6***396.0***392.53 ***
(4.02)(4.09)(4.10)
D-LML (r = 0.626; β = 0.613)
Mean133.3***160.0***193.5***
(26.07)(28.76)(28.14)
Low18.58–3.1212.37
(28.21)(29.86)(29.73)
High236.37***238.89***286.07***
(30.08)(31.63)(31.64)
D-LCM (r = 0.430 [class A]; r = 0.188 [class B])
Mean426.43***430.00***433.8***
(34.92)(35.12)(35.10)
Class A363.4***383.16***387.7***
(35.32)(35.48)(35.50)
Class B580.7***544.67***546.7 ***
(33.93)(34.21)(34.20)
  • Note: Standard errors are in parentheses. Scenario 1 supposes no change from current levels by 2050 without a policy; scenarios 2 and 3 suppose no change from current levels by 2050 with the cap-and-trade (C/T) policy and surface water infrastructure (SWI) policy, respectively. Low = bottom 33rd percentile of WTP from 1,000 random draws of WTP; high = upper 33rd percentile of WTP from 1,000 random draws of WTP.

  • *, **, *** Significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.