Skip to main content
Log in

Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A finite mixture approach toconditional logit models is developed in whichlatent classes are used to promoteunderstanding of systematic heterogeneity. The model is applied to wilderness recreationin which a branded choice experiment involvingchoice of one park from a demand system wasadministered to a sample of recreationists. The basis of membership in the classes orsegments in the sample involved attitudinalmeasures of motivations for taking a trip, aswell as their stated preferences overwilderness park attributes. The econometricanalysis suggested that four classes of peopleexist in the sample. Using the model toexamine welfare measures of some hypotheticalpolicy changes identified markedly differentwelfare effects than the standard singlesegment model, and provided insight into thedifferential impact of alternative policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamowicz, W. L., J. J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994), ‘Combining Stated and Revealed Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 271–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz, W. L., J. D. Swait, P. C. Boxall, J. J. Louviere and M. Williams (1997), ‘Perceptions Versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32, 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz, W. L., J. Louviere and J. Swait (1998), Introduction to Attribute-based Stated Choice Methods. Final Report to Resource Valuation Branch, Damage Assessment Center, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. January. 44 pp.

  • Allenby, G. (1990), ‘Hypothesis Testing with Scanner Data: The Advantage of Bayesian Methods’, Journal of Marketing Research 27, 379–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, J. G. and M. G. Ragheb (1983), ‘Measuring Leisure Motivation’, Journal of Leisure Research 15, 219–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M. and J. Swait (1986), ‘The Akaike Likelihood Ratio Index’, Transportation Science 20, 133–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., J. Walker, A. T. Bernardino, D. A. Gopinath, T. Morikawa and A. Polydoropoulou (1997), Integration of Choice and Latent Variable Models. Paper presented at the 1997 IATBR, University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P. C. and W. L. Adamowicz (1999), Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: The Use of Latent Class Analysis. Staff Paper 99–02, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P. C. and B. MacNab (2000), ‘Exploring The Preferences of Wildlife Recreationists for Features of Boreal Forest Management: A Choice Experiment Approach’, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30, 1931–1941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P. C., J. Englin and D. O. Watson (1999), ‘Valuing Backcountry Recreation in Wilderness Parks: A Demand Systems Approach in The Canadian Shield’, Information Report NOR-X-361, Northern Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, R. E. and S. Gupta (1992), ‘Brand Choice, Purchase Incidence and Segmentation: An Integrated Modeling Approach’, Journal of Marketing Research 20, 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. C. and J. Englin (1997), ‘Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 296–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, R. (1980), ‘Motivations for Leisure’, Journal of Leisure Research 12, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S. and P. K. Chintagunta (1994), ‘On Using Demographic Variables to Determine Segment Membership in Logit Mixture Models’, Journal of Marketing Research 31, 128–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W. M. (1982), Applied Welfare Analysis With Qualitative Response Models. Working Paper No. 241. University of California, Berkeley, 26 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. and G. Russell (1989), ‘A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure’, Journal of Marketing Research 26, 379–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. F. (1996), Rank-Ordered, Random Coefficients Multinomial Probit Models for Stated Preference Surveys. Paper Presented at the 1996 Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Workshop, June 2–4, Tahoe City, California.

  • Louviere, J. J., D. A. Hensher, and J. D. Swait (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon, A. L. (1987) Latent Class Analysis. Sage University Papers Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Number 07–064. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974), ‘Conditional Logit Analysis Of Qualitative Choice Behavior’, in P. Zarembka, ed., Frontiers in Econometrics. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 105–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1986), ‘The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research’, Marketing Science 5, 275–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, E. R., R. D. Rowe, and M. Watson (1993), ‘A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 578–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, R. A. and T. J. Wales (1992), Demand System Specification and Estimation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, I. and M. Ben-Akiva (1983), ‘The Use of the Life-Style Concept in Travel Demand Models’, Environmental and Planning A 15, 623–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P. and R. Strauss (1975), ‘The Predictions of Occupation Using Multinomial Logit Models’, International Economic Review 16, 471–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shonkwiler, J. S. and W. D. Shaw (1997), Shaken, Not Stirred: A Finite Mixture Approach To Analysing Income Effects in Random Utility Models. Paper Presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association. August 2–4, Toronto, Ontario.

  • Swait, J. R. (1994), ‘A Structural Equation Model of Latent Segmentation and Product Choice for Cross-Sectional Revealed Preference Choice Data’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1, 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J. R. and J. J. Louviere (1993), ‘The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models’, Journal of Marketing Research 30, 305–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titterington, D. M., A. F. M. Smith and U. E. Makov (1985), Statistical Analysis of Finite Mixture Distributions. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. E. (1997), ‘Mixed Logit Models for Recreation Demand’, in C. Kling and J. Herriges, eds., Valuing the Environment Using Recreation Demand Models. Edward Elgave: Lyme New Hampshire.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. E. (1998), ‘Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People’, Land Economics 74, 230–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wind, Y. (1978), ‘Issue and Advances in Segmentation Research’, Journal of Marketing Research 15, 317–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yatchew, A. and Griliches, Z. (1984), ‘Specification Error in Probit Models’, Review of Economics and Statistics 66, 134–139.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L. Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 23, 421–446 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021351721619

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021351721619

Navigation