MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790744630 · doi:10.1080/21606544.2018.1450789

Accounting for implicit and explicit payment vehicles in a discrete choice experiment

2018· article· en· W2790744630 on OpenAlexaff
Musharaf Ali Talpur, Mark J. Koetse, Roy Brouwer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Economics and Policy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHigher Education Commission, Pakistan
KeywordsWillingness to payMixed logitPaymentDiscrete choiceSample (material)PreferenceEconomicsEconometricsScale (ratio)Quality (philosophy)WelfareLogistic regressionMicroeconomicsStatisticsMathematicsGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study estimates the benefits of beach quality improvements, using travel costs as an implicit and entrance fee as an explicit payment vehicle in two otherwise identical labelled discrete choice site selection models. Including entrance fee as an explicit payment vehicle in addition to implicit travel costs is expected to affect beach visitors’ preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) since travel costs only are not expected to measure maximum WTP. Convergent validity of preference parameters and WTP derived from the two identical discrete choice experiments (DCEs) is tested using a split-sample approach and specifying a mixed logit choice model. Both preferences and scale parameters are significantly different between the two samples. As expected, mean WTP values are higher when an explicit entrance fee is included in the DCE. Our results suggest that implicit payment vehicles in choice experiments underestimate welfare changes. Beach visitors’ positive WTP holds promise for the introduction of economic instruments such as entrance fees to support the financial sustainability of improved beach management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Economics and PolicySame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207