Using MCMC Probit Model to Value Coastal Beach Quality Improvement

Zuozhi Li, Erda wang, Jingqin Su, Yang Yu
DOI: 10.4236/jep.2011.21012                

Abstract

Dichotomous choice elicitation technique of contingent valuation method is broadly used in the research fields of environmental resource and recreational activity management. The binary choice type of questions are generally analyzed by using Logit or Probit probability distribution models in which a common analysis procedure is to apply MLE for estimating variable parameters before calculating the respondents’ willingness to pay. In this paper, a MCMC Gibbs sampling Probit model is adopted to maintain the three advantages it has in dealing with heteroscedasticity, high dimension numerical integral and sample size restriction problems. The results revealed that the MCMC model and MLE Probit model are strikingly consistent, which suggests that the former is much simple and reliable estimation method. At the same time, the empirically based existence value estimation of coastal beach quality improvement in Dalian, China is RMB?168 per person.

Keywords

Value of Coastal Beach Quality, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), Probit Model

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	V.K. Smith, X. Zhang and R.B. Palmquist, “Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-market Values,” Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1997, pp. 223-247. doi:10.1023/A:1026465413899
[2]	J. C. Whitehead, C. F. Dumas, J. Herstine, J. Hill and B. Buerger, “Valuing Beach Access and Width with Revealed and Stated Preference Data,” Marine Resource Economics, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2008, pp. 119-135.
[3]	C. E. Landry, A. G. Keeler and W. Kriesel, “An Economic Evaluation of Beach Erosion Management Alternatives,” Marine Resource Economics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2003, pp. 105-127.
[4]	C. Oh, A. W. Dixon, J. W. Mjelde and J. Draper, “Valuing Visitors’ Economic Benefits of Public Beach Access Points,” Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 51, No. 12, 2008, pp. 847-853. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.09.003
[5]	R. C. Bishop and T. A. Heberlein, “Measuring Values of Extra-market Goods: are Indirect Measures Biased,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61, No. 5, 1979, pp. 926-930. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.09.003
[6]	W. M. Hanemann, “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 66, No. 3, 1984, pp. 332-341.
[7]	R. Arrow, R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner and H Schuman, “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation,” 1993. http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/cvblue.pdf
[8]	J. Geweke, “Bayesian Treatment of the Independent Student t Linear Model,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1993, pp.19-40. doi:10.1002/jae.3950080504
[9]	S. Chib and E. Greenberg, “Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation Methods in Econometrics,” Econometric Theory, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1996, pp. 409-431. doi:10.1017/S0266466600006794
[10]	R. E. Kass, B. P. Carlin, A. Gelman, and R. M. Neal, “Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice: A Roundtable Discussion,” The American Statistician, Vol. 52, No. 2, 1998, pp. 93-100. doi:10.2307/2685466