IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v18y2016icp45-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area

Author

Listed:
  • Jeanloz, Sarah
  • Lizin, Sebastien
  • Beenaerts, Natalie
  • Brouwer, Roy
  • Van Passel, Steven
  • Witters, Nele

Abstract

The process of selecting attributes for inclusion in choice experiments frequently involves qualitative methods such as focus groups and interviews. In order for a choice experiment to be successful and the results to be valid, this qualitative selection process is essential. It often lacks rigour and is poorly described, particularly in environmental choice experiments. We propose a meticulous attribute and attribute-level selection process consisting of a scoring exercise and an interactive discussion. This paper provides a case study describing how attributes and attribute-levels were identified and selected for the National Park Hoge Kempen in Belgium. We carried out four focus groups and thirteen semi-structured interviews with various park stakeholders to select attributes from six categories: the four categories of ecosystem services (supporting, provisioning, regulating, cultural), infrastructure, and land use types. The top-ranked characteristics were nature conservation, natural forests, biodiversity refuge, wetlands, landscape variety, heathlands, air purification, and education. Both the scoring exercise and the interactive discussion contributed to the attributes selected for the CE. Following these, an ultimate expert consultation stage is recommended to approve both the attribute and attribute-level selection. The semi-qualitative protocol proposed in this paper can help practitioners and demonstrates how the results guide choice experiment design.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeanloz, Sarah & Lizin, Sebastien & Beenaerts, Natalie & Brouwer, Roy & Van Passel, Steven & Witters, Nele, 2016. "Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 45-57.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:18:y:2016:i:c:p:45-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.01.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616300079
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.01.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
    2. Darvill, Rachel & Lindo, Zoë, 2015. "Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 153-161.
    3. Krasny, Marianne E. & Russ, Alex & Tidball, Keith G. & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2014. "Civic ecology practices: Participatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 177-186.
    4. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    5. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    6. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    7. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    8. Zander, Kerstin K. & Drucker, Adam G., 2008. "Conserving what's important: Using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 34-45, December.
    9. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    10. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    11. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    12. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    13. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    14. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    15. Kaffashi, Sara & Yacob, Mohd Rusli & Clark, Maynard S. & Radam, Alias & Mamat, Mohd Farid, 2015. "Exploring visitors' willingness to pay to generate revenues for managing the National Elephant Conservation Center in Malaysia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 9-19.
    16. Chaminuka, P. & Groeneveld, R.A. & Selomane, A.O. & van Ierland, E.C., 2012. "Tourist preferences for ecotourism in rural communities adjacent to Kruger National Park: A choice experiment approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 168-176.
    17. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
    18. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri (ed.), 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4102.
    19. Michaels-Igbokwe, Christine & Lagarde, Mylene & Cairns, John & Terris-Prestholt, Fern, 2014. "Using decision mapping to inform the development of a stated choice survey to elicit youth preferences for sexual and reproductive health and HIV services in rural Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 93-102.
    20. Barkmann, J. & Glenk, K. & Keil, A. & Leemhuis, C. & Dietrich, N. & Gerold, G. & Marggraf, R., 2008. "Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-62, March.
    21. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    22. Robert J. Johnston & Eric T. Schultz & Kathleen Segerson & Elena Y. Besedin & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2012. "Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(1), pages 102-120.
    23. Lo, Alex Y., 2013. "Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: Reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 84-94.
    24. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    25. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    26. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    27. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    28. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    29. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
    30. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    31. Kaplowitz, Michael D. & Hoehn, John P., 2001. "Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 237-247, February.
    32. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    33. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    34. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    35. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    36. Spash, Clive L., 2002. "Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 665-687, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bjørnåvold, Amalie & David, Maia & Bohan, David A. & Gibert, Caroline & Rousselle, Jean-Marc & Van Passel, Steven, 2022. "Why does France not meet its pesticide reduction targets? Farmers' socio-economic trade-offs when adopting agro-ecological practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    2. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Barton, David N. & Geneletti, Davide & Langemeyer, Johannes & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Marttunen, Mika & Antunes, Paula & Keune, Hans & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 238-249.
    3. Matthews, Yvonne, 2023. "A hybrid and hierarchical stated preference study of freshwater restoration in Aotearoa New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Weber, Matthew A. & Meixner, Thomas & Stromberg, Juliet C., 2016. "Valuing instream-related services of wastewater," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 59-71.
    5. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Mokas, Ilias & Lizin, Sebastien & Brijs, Tom & Witters, Nele & Malina, Robert, 2021. "Can immersive virtual reality increase respondents’ certainty in discrete choice experiments? A comparison with traditional presentation formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    3. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Lienhoop, Nele & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2018. "Involving multiple actors in ecosystem service governance: Exploring the role of stated preference valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 181-188.
    5. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    6. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    7. Jonelle Cleland & Abbie McCartney, 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: Divergence Between Experts and the Public," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1077, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    8. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    9. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.
    10. Bunse, Lukas & Rendon, Olivia & Luque, Sandra, 2015. "What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 88-97.
    11. Roy Brouwer & Marije Schaafsma, 2013. "Modelling risk adaptation and mitigation behaviour under different climate change scenarios," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 11-29, March.
    12. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    13. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    14. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol, 2010. "Introduction: The Roles and Significance of Choice Experiments in Developing Country Contexts," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    16. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    17. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    19. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:18:y:2016:i:c:p:45-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.