Amenities that vary across cities are typically valued using either a hedonic model, in which amenities are capitalized into wages and housing prices, or a discrete model of household location choice. In this paper, we use the 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) to value climate amenities using both methods. We compare estimates of marginal willingness to pay (MWTP), allowing preferences for climate amenities to vary by location. We find that mean MWTP for warmer winters is about twice as large using the discrete choice approach as with the hedonic approach; mean MWTP for cooler summers is approximately the same. The two approaches differ, however, in their estimates of MWTP by location. These disparities lead to significant differences in estimates of willingness to pay to avoid the A2 and B1 SRES scenarios in 2020–2050 using the two approaches.

不同城市的便利设施通常使用享乐模型（其中便利设施资本化为工资和房价）或家庭位置选择的离散模型进行估值。在本文中，我们使用 2000 年公共使用微数据样本 (PUMS) 使用这两种方法对气候设施进行评估。我们比较了边际支付意愿 (MWTP) 的估计值，允许对气候设施的偏好因地点而异。我们发现，使用离散选择方法，温暖冬季的平均 MWTP 大约是使用特征方法的两倍；较凉夏季的平均 MWTP 大致相同。然而，这两种方法在按位置对 MWTP 的估计方面有所不同。