nonlinear meta-regression for benefit transfer · 2018. 12. 13. · intro adding-up nl-mrm model...
TRANSCRIPT
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Nonlinear Meta-Regression for Benefit Transfer
Klaus Moeltner
Presented at the 2018 ACES Meetings,Washington, DC Area, Dec. 3-6, 2018
This research was partially funded under U.S. EPA contract number EP-C-13-039. The findings, conclusions,
and views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S.
EPA. No agency endorsement should be inferred.
1 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Intro
2 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Intro
3 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Intro
4 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Intro
log (wtp) = A + βlog(y) + γ0q0 + γ∆ (q1 − q0) , or
wtp = yβexp (A + γ0q0 + γ∆ (q1 − q0))
5 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Intro
Sensitivity to scope?
∂wtp
∂q1|q0 = γ∆ ∗ wtp,
γ∆ > 0?
6 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Intro
Sensitivity to scope?
∂wtp
∂q1|q0 = γ∆ ∗ wtp,
γ∆ > 0?
6 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Intro
Adding-up property?
wtp (q2 − q0)?= wtp (q1 − q0) + wtp (q2 − q1)
yβexp (A) exp (γ0q0 + γ∆ (q2 − q0)) 6=yβexp (A) ∗(exp (γ0q0 + γ∆ (q1 − q0)) + exp (γ0q1 + γ∆ (q2 − q1))) ,
7 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Intro
Adding-up property?
wtp (q2 − q0)?= wtp (q1 − q0) + wtp (q2 − q1)
yβexp (A) exp (γ0q0 + γ∆ (q2 − q0)) 6=yβexp (A) ∗(exp (γ0q0 + γ∆ (q1 − q0)) + exp (γ0q1 + γ∆ (q2 − q1))) ,
7 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Intro
Adding-up property?
wtp (q2 − q0)?= wtp (q1 − q0) + wtp (q2 − q1)
yβexp (A) exp (γ0q0 + γ∆ (q2 − q0)) 6=yβexp (A) ∗(exp (γ0q0 + γ∆ (q1 − q0)) + exp (γ0q1 + γ∆ (q2 − q1))) ,
7 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
• Adding-Up violation is a real “practical headache”
• Many EPA policies proceed in incrementsover time and/or space
• Example: Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation plan toreduce TMDLs
• Multiple phases across sectors and jurisdictions
• Example: Steam Electric Power Plants rule
• EPA needs to know partial benefits from partial cleanup ANDbenefits “still on the table”
• First raised in the peer-reviewed literature byNewbold et al. (2018)
8 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
• Adding-Up violation is a real “practical headache”
• Many EPA policies proceed in incrementsover time and/or space
• Example: Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation plan toreduce TMDLs
• Multiple phases across sectors and jurisdictions
• Example: Steam Electric Power Plants rule
• EPA needs to know partial benefits from partial cleanup ANDbenefits “still on the table”
• First raised in the peer-reviewed literature byNewbold et al. (2018)
8 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
• Adding-Up violation is a real “practical headache”
• Many EPA policies proceed in incrementsover time and/or space
• Example: Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation plan toreduce TMDLs
• Multiple phases across sectors and jurisdictions
• Example: Steam Electric Power Plants rule
• EPA needs to know partial benefits from partial cleanup ANDbenefits “still on the table”
• First raised in the peer-reviewed literature byNewbold et al. (2018)
8 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
• Adding-Up violation is a real “practical headache”
• Many EPA policies proceed in incrementsover time and/or space
• Example: Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation plan toreduce TMDLs
• Multiple phases across sectors and jurisdictions
• Example: Steam Electric Power Plants rule
• EPA needs to know partial benefits from partial cleanup ANDbenefits “still on the table”
• First raised in the peer-reviewed literature byNewbold et al. (2018)
8 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
• Adding-Up violation is a real “practical headache”
• Many EPA policies proceed in incrementsover time and/or space
• Example: Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation plan toreduce TMDLs
• Multiple phases across sectors and jurisdictions
• Example: Steam Electric Power Plants rule
• EPA needs to know partial benefits from partial cleanup ANDbenefits “still on the table”
• First raised in the peer-reviewed literature byNewbold et al. (2018)
8 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
• Adding-Up violation is a real “practical headache”
• Many EPA policies proceed in incrementsover time and/or space
• Example: Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation plan toreduce TMDLs
• Multiple phases across sectors and jurisdictions
• Example: Steam Electric Power Plants rule
• EPA needs to know partial benefits from partial cleanup ANDbenefits “still on the table”
• First raised in the peer-reviewed literature byNewbold et al. (2018)
8 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
• Adding-Up violation is a real “practical headache”
• Many EPA policies proceed in incrementsover time and/or space
• Example: Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation plan toreduce TMDLs
• Multiple phases across sectors and jurisdictions
• Example: Steam Electric Power Plants rule
• EPA needs to know partial benefits from partial cleanup ANDbenefits “still on the table”
• First raised in the peer-reviewed literature byNewbold et al. (2018)
8 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
Example: from “boatable” (q=2.5) to “fishable” (q=5.1) to“swimmable” (q=7.0)
γ̂0 = −0.124
γ̂∆ = 0.2095
q0 = 2.5, q1 = 5.1, q2 = 7.0
wtp (q1 − q0) + wtp (q2 − q1)
wtp (q2 − q0)= 1.09
9 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
Example: from “boatable” (q=2.5) to “fishable” (q=5.1) to“swimmable” (q=7.0)
γ̂0 = −0.124
γ̂∆ = 0.2095
q0 = 2.5, q1 = 5.1, q2 = 7.0
wtp (q1 − q0) + wtp (q2 − q1)
wtp (q2 − q0)= 1.09
9 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
Example: from “boatable” (q=2.5) to “fishable” (q=5.1) to“swimmable” (q=7.0)
γ̂0 = −0.124
γ̂∆ = 0.2095
q0 = 2.5, q1 = 5.1, q2 = 7.0
wtp (q1 − q0) + wtp (q2 − q1)
wtp (q2 − q0)= 1.09
9 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
Example: smaller steps around “fishable”
γ̂0 = −0.124
γ̂∆ = 0.2095
q0 = 5.0, q1 = 5.1, q2 = 5.2
wtp (q1 − q0) + wtp (q2 − q1)
wtp (q2 − q0)= 1.95
10 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
Example: smaller steps around “fishable”
γ̂0 = −0.124
γ̂∆ = 0.2095
q0 = 5.0, q1 = 5.1, q2 = 5.2
wtp (q1 − q0) + wtp (q2 − q1)
wtp (q2 − q0)= 1.95
10 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Adding-up
Example: smaller steps around “fishable”
γ̂0 = −0.124
γ̂∆ = 0.2095
q0 = 5.0, q1 = 5.1, q2 = 5.2
wtp (q1 − q0) + wtp (q2 − q1)
wtp (q2 − q0)= 1.95
10 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
NL-MRM
wtp =
∫ q1
q0
yβexp (A) exp (γq)dq =
yβexp (A)
(1
γ(exp (γq1)− exp (γq0))
)log (wtp) = A + βlog (y) + log
(1
γ(exp (γq1)− exp (γq0))
)
11 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
NL-MRM
yis = x′isβ + log(γ−1 (exp (γq1,is)− exp (γq0,is))
)+ us + εis
us ∼ n(0, σ2
u
),
εis ∼ n(0, σ2
εωis
), where ωis ∼ ig
(ν2 ,
ν2
)
12 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Model Comparison
Meta-Data:
• 140 obs., 51 studies
• wtp for water quality change, 100-point scale
• 22 explanatory variables
• used by EPA to inform steam electric rule revision (ongoing)
13 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Model Comparison
Meta-Data:
• 140 obs., 51 studies
• wtp for water quality change, 100-point scale
• 22 explanatory variables
• used by EPA to inform steam electric rule revision (ongoing)
13 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Model Comparison
Meta-Data:
• 140 obs., 51 studies
• wtp for water quality change, 100-point scale
• 22 explanatory variables
• used by EPA to inform steam electric rule revision (ongoing)
13 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Model Comparison
Meta-Data:
• 140 obs., 51 studies
• wtp for water quality change, 100-point scale
• 22 explanatory variables
• used by EPA to inform steam electric rule revision (ongoing)
13 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Model Comparison
Meta-Data:
• 140 obs., 51 studies
• wtp for water quality change, 100-point scale
• 22 explanatory variables
• used by EPA to inform steam electric rule revision (ongoing)
13 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Model Comparison
Model comparison via Bayes Factors
NL-MRM vs: log-Bayes Factor
MRM1linlin -24.285MRM1linlog -20.958MRM1loglog -23.742
MRM2 -6.560MRM2Slin -9.053MRM2Slog -23.870
14 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
BT context:
• riperian ecosystem
• can be borrow from remaining (lake) data?
• Bayesian Stochastic Search Variable Selection
15 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
BT context:
• riperian ecosystem
• can be borrow from remaining (lake) data?
• Bayesian Stochastic Search Variable Selection
15 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
BT context:
• riperian ecosystem
• can be borrow from remaining (lake) data?
• Bayesian Stochastic Search Variable Selection
15 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
BT context:
• riperian ecosystem
• can be borrow from remaining (lake) data?
• Bayesian Stochastic Search Variable Selection
15 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
River data (n=96)
Lake data (n=44)
WTP
WTP
Interactionterms
16 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
ys = X1sβx + Msβm + Zsδ+
log(
(γ + δγds)−1 (exp ((γ + δγds)q1,s)− exp ((γ + δγds)q0,s)))
+ isus + εs
p (δj ) = p0 ∗ n(0, c2t2
)+ (1− p0) n
(0, t2
),
17 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
ys = X1sβx + Msβm + Zsδ+
log(
(γ + δγds)−1 (exp ((γ + δγds)q1,s)− exp ((γ + δγds)q0,s)))
+ isus + εs
p (δj ) = p0 ∗ n(0, c2t2
)+ (1− p0) n
(0, t2
),
17 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
Scenario 1: WQI 25-51, 51-70 (boatable, fishable, swimmable)
BT results, SSVS, total WTP ($)
NL-MRM MRM1linlinscenario (WQI) low mean high low mean high
25 to 51 0.00 50.99 156.53 0.72 32.33 85.5951 to 70 0.00 26.33 80.10 0.94 24.08 63.6525 to 70 0.00 77.19 235.89 0.91 41.12 108.12
adding-up error 0.17% 37.18%
18 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
Scenario 1: WQI 25-51, 51-70 (boatable, fishable, swimmable)
BT results, SSVS, total WTP ($)
NL-MRM MRM1linlinscenario (WQI) low mean high low mean high
25 to 51 0.00 50.99 156.53 0.72 32.33 85.5951 to 70 0.00 26.33 80.10 0.94 24.08 63.6525 to 70 0.00 77.19 235.89 0.91 41.12 108.12
adding-up error 0.17% 37.18%
18 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
Scenario 2: WQI 73-73.5, 73.5-74(option D of Steam Electric rule)
BT results, SSVS, total WTP ($)
NL-MRM MRM1linlinscenario (WQI) low mean high low mean high
73 to 73.5 0.00 0.57 1.74 0.46 16.26 43.8973.5 to 74 0.00 0.57 1.73 0.47 16.21 43.7973 to 74 0.00 1.14 3.47 0.28 16.36 43.98
adding-up error 0.18% 98.40%
19 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
Scenario 2: WQI 73-73.5, 73.5-74(option D of Steam Electric rule)
BT results, SSVS, total WTP ($)
NL-MRM MRM1linlinscenario (WQI) low mean high low mean high
73 to 73.5 0.00 0.57 1.74 0.46 16.26 43.8973.5 to 74 0.00 0.57 1.73 0.47 16.21 43.7973 to 74 0.00 1.14 3.47 0.28 16.36 43.98
adding-up error 0.18% 98.40%
19 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
• Option D of SER: $ 1.14/HH
• 84.5 million HHs affected
• Benefits: $96 million (2007 dollars)
20 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
• Option D of SER: $ 1.14/HH
• 84.5 million HHs affected
• Benefits: $96 million (2007 dollars)
20 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Empirical Example
• Option D of SER: $ 1.14/HH
• 84.5 million HHs affected
• Benefits: $96 million (2007 dollars)
20 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Conclusion
• Existing MRMs for quality change theoretically flawed
• Adding-Up: serious problem of high practical relevance
• NL-MRM provides compromise of theoretical consistency andreasonable empirical fit
• Bayesian methods allow for rigorous model comparison,full exploitation of meta-data for BT application
THANK YOU!
21 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Conclusion
• Existing MRMs for quality change theoretically flawed
• Adding-Up: serious problem of high practical relevance
• NL-MRM provides compromise of theoretical consistency andreasonable empirical fit
• Bayesian methods allow for rigorous model comparison,full exploitation of meta-data for BT application
THANK YOU!
21 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Conclusion
• Existing MRMs for quality change theoretically flawed
• Adding-Up: serious problem of high practical relevance
• NL-MRM provides compromise of theoretical consistency andreasonable empirical fit
• Bayesian methods allow for rigorous model comparison,full exploitation of meta-data for BT application
THANK YOU!
21 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Conclusion
• Existing MRMs for quality change theoretically flawed
• Adding-Up: serious problem of high practical relevance
• NL-MRM provides compromise of theoretical consistency andreasonable empirical fit
• Bayesian methods allow for rigorous model comparison,full exploitation of meta-data for BT application
THANK YOU!
21 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Conclusion
• Existing MRMs for quality change theoretically flawed
• Adding-Up: serious problem of high practical relevance
• NL-MRM provides compromise of theoretical consistency andreasonable empirical fit
• Bayesian methods allow for rigorous model comparison,full exploitation of meta-data for BT application
THANK YOU!
21 / 21
Intro Adding-up NL-MRM Model Comparison Empirical Example Conclusion
Conclusion
• Existing MRMs for quality change theoretically flawed
• Adding-Up: serious problem of high practical relevance
• NL-MRM provides compromise of theoretical consistency andreasonable empirical fit
• Bayesian methods allow for rigorous model comparison,full exploitation of meta-data for BT application
THANK YOU!
21 / 21