선택실험법 자료에서의 선호이질성 분석을 위한 혼합로짓모형 및 잠재계층모형의 활용 = Using Mixed Logit Model and Latent Class Model to Analyze Preference Heterogeneity in Choice Experiment Data

국문 초록 (Abstract)

조건부 로짓(Conditional Logit: CL)모형은 모형추정 및 결과해석이 비교적 용이하다는 장점으로 널리 사용되는 반면에 응답자의 선호이질성(preference heterogeneity)을 충분히 반영하지 못한다는 한계를 가지고 있다. 본 연구에서는 최근 지배적인 방식으로 제시되고 있는 두개의 모형인 혼합로짓(Mixed Logit; ML)모형과 잠재계층모형(Latent Class Model; LCM)을 사용하여 우리나라 보령댐 주변 습지보호에 있어서 응답자간 선호이질성을 설명하고자 하였다. 6대광역시와 보령시 표본에 대하여 응답자별 이질성의 존재여부를 검토한 결과 두 지역간 뚜렷한 차이가 있음을 알 수 있었다. 즉 보령시의 경우에는 응답자간 선호이질성이 뚜렷하게 나타난데 반하여 6대광역시의 경우 응답자간 선호이질성이 거의 나타나지 않았다. 따라서 6대광역시의 경우에는 모수추정을 위해 CL 모형의 사용이 가능하나 보령시의 경우에는 선호이질성을 반영하기 위해 ML모형이나 LCM에 근거한 모수추정이 요구된다. 선호이질성의 원인을 규명하기 위하여 교차항이 있는 혼합로짓모형과 잠재계층모형을 고려할 수 있다. 교차항이 있는 혼합로짓모형의 경우 관찰되지 않은 개인단위의 이질성을 설명할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 그러나 두모형을 비교한 결과 LCM이 교차항이 있는 ML모형이 제공하지 않는 추가적인 정보를 보여주는 것으로 나타나고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서의 응답자간 선호이질성은 혼합로짓모형에 의한 개인적인 수준보다 잠재계층모형에 의한 계층단위에서 더 잘 설명될 수 있다고 할 수 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Conditional Logit (CL) model is widely used since its model estimation and interpretation of results of the model is relatively easy, on the other hand, it has the limit of preference heterogeneity of respondents being not fully considered. In this study we used the two models, Mixed Logit (ML) Model and Latent Class Model (LCM) to explain preference heterogeneity of respondents for protection for Boryeong Dam wetland. As a result of the examination for heterogeneity in Boryeong city and six metropolitan areas, we found there was significant difference between two regions. While there was explicit preference heterogeneity within respondents in Boryeong city, we found little heterogeneity within respondents in six metropolitan areas. Thus in the case of six metropolitan areas, CL model can be used for parameter estimation while in the case of Boryeong city, WTP estimates are based on parameter estimates from ML model to reflect the heterogeneity within respondents. Additionally, ML model with interaction and 2-class LCM for respondents in Boryeong city were used to explain the sources of the heterogeneity. The ML model with interaction has advantage of explaining individual unobserved heterogeneity. However The comarison between these two models reflects the fact that LCM provided added information that was not conveyed in the ML model with interaction. Thus, Preference heterogeneity within respondents in this study may be better explained by class level through LCM rather than indiviual level through ML model.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김덕길, "댐습지의 기능 및 가치평가 연구(2) - CE를 이용한 가치평가 : 보령댐을 대상으로 -" 한국습지학회 11 (11): 133-143, 2009

2 김용주, "가계의 이질적 선호가 비시장재 가치의 추정에 미치는 영향" 한국환경경제학회 16 (16): 873-900, 2007

3 Carlsson, F., "Valuing Wetland Attributes: an Application of Choice Experiments" 47 : 95-103, 2003

4 Ruto, E., "Valuing Animal Genetic Resources: a Choice Modeling Application to Indigenous Cattle in Kenya" 38 : 89-98, 2008

5 Birol, E,., "Using Choice Experiment to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in Wetland Attributes: the Case of Cheimaditita Wetland in Greece" 60 : 145-156, 2006

6 Boxall, P. C., "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach" 23 : 421-446, 2002

7 Hensher, D. A., "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice" 30 : 133-176, 2003

8 Ben-Akiva, M., "The Akaike Likelihood Ratio Index" 20 : 133-136, 1986

9 Adamowicz, W., "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation" 80 : 64-75, 1998

10 Louviere, J., "Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and application" Cambridge University Press 2000

11 Hausman, J., "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model" 52 : 1219-1240, 1984

12 Dunlap, R. E., "New Environmental Paradigm: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results" 9 : 10-19, 1978

13 Glenk, K., "Modelling Outcome-related Risk in Choice Experiments" European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 2011

14 Colombo, S., "Modeling Peference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Data: an Analysis for Public Goods Generated by Agriculture" 40 : 307-322, 2009

15 Kosenius, A-K, "Heterogeneous Preferences for water quality attributes: the case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea" 69 : 528-538, 2010

16 Hynes, S., "Effect on Welfare Measures of Alternative means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models" 90 : 1011-1027, 2008

17 Bateman, I., "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques A manual" Edward Elgar 2002

18 Provencher, B., "Does Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity Improve the Forecasting of a Random Utility Model?: A Case Study" 48 : 793-810, 2004

19 Meyerhoff, J., "Do Protest Responses to a Contingent Valuation Question and a Choice Experiment Differ?" 39 : 433-446, 2008

20 Train, K. E., "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation" 2003

21 McFadden, D., "Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, In Frontier in Econometrics" Academic Press 1974

22 Bujosa, A., "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach" 23 : 477-493, 2010

23 Hess, S., "Capturing Correlation and Taste Heterogeneity with Mixed GEV Models, In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental Economics" Springer Publishers 2005

24 Hensher, D. A., "Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer" 2005

25 Bhat, C. R., "An Endogenous Segmentation Mode Choice Model with an Application to Intercity Travel" 31 : 34-48, 1997

26 Swait, J. R., "A Structural Equation Model of Latent Segmentation and Product Choice for Cross-Sectional Revealed Preference Choice Data" 1 : 77-89, 1994

27 Green, W. H., "A Latent Class Model for Discrete Choice Analysis: Contrasts with Mixed Logit" 37 : 681-698, 2003