Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3524458.3547250acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgooditConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Measuring the Uncertainty of Environmental Good Preferences with Bayesian Deep Learning

Published: 07 September 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Due to climate change and resulting natural disasters, there has been a growing interest in measuring the value of social goods to our society, like environmental conservation. Traditionally, the stated preference, such as contingent valuation, captures an economics-perspective on the value of environmental goods through the willingness to pay (WTP) paradigm. Where the economics theory to estimate the WTP using machine learning is the random utility model. However, the estimation of WTP depends on rather simple preference assumptions based on a linear functional form. These models are therefore unable to capture the complex uncertainty in the human decision-making process. Further, contingent valuation only uses the mean or median estimation of WTP. Yet it has been recognized that other quantiles of the WTP would be valuable to ensure the provision of social goods. In this work, we propose to leverage the Bayesian Deep Learning (BDL) models to capture the uncertainty in stated preference estimation. We focus on the probability of paying for an environmental good and the conditional distribution of WTP. The Bayesian deep learning model connects with the economics theory of the random utility model through the stochastic component on the individual preferences. For testing our proposed model, we work with both synthetic and real world data. The results on synthetic data suggest the BDL can capture the uncertainty consistently with different distribution of WTP. For the real world data, a forest conservation contingent valuation survey, we observed a high variability in the distribution of the WTP, suggesting high uncertainty in the individual preferences for social goods. Our research can be used to inform environmental policy, including the preservation of natural resources and other social good.

References

[1]
Francisco Alpizar, Fredrik Carlsson, Peter Martinsson, 2001. Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Working papers in economics/Göteborg University, Dept. of Economics; no. 52 (2001).
[2]
Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow, Paul R Portney, 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal register 58, 10 (1993), 4601–14.
[3]
Kenneth J Arrow. 2001. Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press on Demand.
[4]
Xiao Bai, Xiang Wang, Xianglong Liu, Qiang Liu, Jingkuan Song, Nicu Sebe, and Been Kim. 2021. Explainable deep learning for efficient and robust pattern recognition: A survey of recent developments. Pattern Recognition 120(2021).
[5]
Thomas Bue Bjørner. 2004. Combining socio-acoustic and contingent valuation surveys to value noise reduction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 9, 5(2004), 341–356.
[6]
Charles Blundell, Julien Cornebise, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Daan Wierstra. 2015. Weight uncertainty in neural network. In Int. conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1613–1622.
[7]
Luis Bravo-Moncayo, José Lucio Naranjo, Ignacio Pavón García, and Roberto Mosquera. 2017. Neural based contingent valuation of road traffic noise. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 50 (2017), 26–39.
[8]
Luis Bravo-Moncayo, Ignacio Pavón-García, José Lucio-Naranjo, and Roberto Mosquera. 2017. Contingent valuation of road traffic noise: A case study in the urban area of Quito, Ecuador. Case studies on transport policy 5, 4 (2017), 722–730.
[9]
Richard T Carson and W Michael Hanemann. 2005. Contingent valuation. Handbook of environmental economics 2 (2005), 821–936.
[10]
Supriyo Chakraborty 2017. Interpretability of deep learning models: A survey of results. In IEEE smartworld, ubiquitous intelligence & computing, advanced & trusted computed, scalable computing & communications, cloud & big data computing, Internet of people and smart city innovation.
[11]
Patricia A Champ, Kevin J Boyle, Thomas C Brown, and L George Peterson. 2003. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Vol. 3. Springer.
[12]
Declan Conway, Edward Allison, Richard Felstead, and Marisa Goulden. 2005. Rainfall variability in East Africa: implications for natural resources management and livelihoods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 363, 1826 (2005).
[13]
Esther W de Bekker-Grob, Mandy Ryan, and Karen Gerard. 2012. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health economics 21, 2 (2012), 145–172.
[14]
Filip Karlo Došilović, Mario Brčić, and Nikica Hlupić. 2018. Explainable artificial intelligence: A survey. In 41st International convention on information and communication technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO). IEEE, 210–215.
[15]
Colette M Escobar, W Steven Barnett, and John E Keith. 1988. A contingent valuation approach to measuring the benefits of preschool education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 10, 1 (1988), 13–22.
[16]
Yarin Gal 2016. Uncertainty in deep learning. (2016).
[17]
Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2016. A theoretically grounded application of dropout in recurrent neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016).
[18]
Andrew Gelman, John B Carlin, Hal S Stern, and Donald B Rubin. 1995. Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
[19]
Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. 2016. Deep learning. MIT press.
[20]
Alex Graves. 2011. Practical variational inference for neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 24 (2011).
[21]
Timothy C Haab and Kenneth E McConnell. 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation.
[22]
W Michael Hanemann. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American journal of agricultural economics 66, 3 (1984), 332–341.
[23]
Nick Hanley, Robert E Wright, and Vic Adamowicz. 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and resource economics 11, 3 (1998), 413–428.
[24]
Simon Jackman. 2009. Bayesian analysis for the social sciences. J. Wiley & Sons.
[25]
Nikhil Ketkar and Jojo Moolayil. 2021. Introduction to pytorch. In Deep learning with python. Springer, 27–91.
[26]
Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114(2013).
[27]
Thomas Klose. 1999. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health policy 47, 2 (1999), 97–123.
[28]
Kelvin J Lancaster. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of political economy 74, 2 (1966), 132–157.
[29]
Felipe Vásquez Lavín, Ricardo Flores, and Verónica Ibarnegaray. 2017. A Bayesian quantile binary regression approach to estimate payments for environmental services. Environment and Development Economics 22, 2 (2017), 156–176.
[30]
John Loomis, Paula Kent, Liz Strange, Kurt Fausch, and Alan Covich. 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological economics 33, 1 (2000), 103–117.
[31]
Scott M Lynch. 2007. Introduction to applied Bayesian statistics and estimation for social scientists. Springer Science & Business Media.
[32]
Robert Cameron Mitchell and Richard T Carson. 2013. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Rff Press.
[33]
Radford M Neal. 2012. Bayesian learning for neural networks. Vol. 118. Springer Science & Business Media.
[34]
Bo Pang, Erik Nijkamp, and Ying Nian Wu. 2020. Deep learning with tensorflow: A review. J of Educational and Behavioral Stats 45, 2 (2020), 227–48.
[35]
Ankit Patel, Minh Nguyen, and Richard Baraniuk. 2016. A probabilistic framework for deep learning. Advances in neural info. processing systems 29 (2016).
[36]
John W Payne. 1982. Contingent decision behavior.Psychological bulletin 92, 2 (1982), 382.
[37]
Roberto Roson, Alvaro Calzadilla, and Francesco Pauli. 2006. Climate change and extreme events: an assessment of economic implications. (2006).
[38]
John Salvatier, Thomas V Wiecki, and Christopher Fonnesbeck. 2016. Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3. PeerJ Comp Sci 2(2016).
[39]
Quirin Schiermeier. 2019. Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet. Nature 572, 7769 (2019), 291–293.
[40]
Ulla Slothuus, Mette L Larsen, and Peter Junker. 2002. The contingent ranking method—a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care?Social science & medicine 54, 10 (2002), 1601–1609.
[41]
Lingappan Venkatachalam. 2004. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental impact assessment review 24, 1 (2004), 89–124.
[42]
Dale Whittington and Stefano Pagiola. 2012. Using contingent valuation in the design of payments for environmental services mechanisms: A review and assessment. The World Bank Research Observer 27, 2 (2012), 261–287.
[43]
Arnold Zellner. 1988. Bayesian analysis in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics 37, 1 (1988), 27–50.
[44]
Xilei Zhao, Xiang Yan, Alan Yu, and Pascal Van Hentenryck. 2018. Modeling Stated preference for mobility-on-demand transit: a comparison of Machine Learning and logit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.01315(2018).

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
GoodIT '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good
September 2022
436 pages
ISBN:9781450392846
DOI:10.1145/3524458
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 September 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Contingent valuation
  2. Environmental conservation
  3. Random utility model
  4. Sustainability

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

GoodIT 2022
Sponsor:

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 87
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media