IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v9y2020i3p29-d330922.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

University Students’ Preferences for Labour Conditions at a Mining Site: Evidence from Two Australian Universities

Author

Listed:
  • Yutaka Ito

    (Graduate School of International Resource Sciences, Akita University, Akita 010-8502, Japan)

  • Shuto Mikami

    (Department of Earth Resource Engineering and Environmental Science, Akita University, Akita 010-8502, Japan)

  • Hyongdoo Jang

    (Western Australian School of Mines: Minerals, Energy and Chemical Engineering, Curtin University, Kalgoorlie 6433, Australia)

  • Abbas Taheri

    (School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia)

  • Kenta Tanaka

    (Faculty of Economics, Musashi University, 1-26-1 Toyotama-kami, Nerima-ku, Tokyo 176-8534, Japan)

  • Youhei Kawamura

    (Graduate School of International Resource Sciences, Department of Earth Resource Engineering and Environmental Science, Akita University, Akita 010-8502, Japan)

Abstract

The mining industry makes up a large portion of the gross domestic product (GDP) in Australia, although securing human resources remains a problem in that field. The aim of this paper is to identify Australian university mining students’ preferences, considering it as potential employees’ preferences, for labour conditions at mining sites by means of a discrete choice experiment to promote efficient improvements in labour conditions in the mining industry. The data of 93 respondents analysed in this paper was collected by survey carried out in two universities in Australia. The result of the study showed that students have preferences on several factors such as wage, fatality rate, working position, commuting style, and company. Students having specific sociodemographic characters were found to show specific preferences on labour conditions. The results of this study indicate the potential average of appropriate monetary compensation for each factor.

Suggested Citation

  • Yutaka Ito & Shuto Mikami & Hyongdoo Jang & Abbas Taheri & Kenta Tanaka & Youhei Kawamura, 2020. "University Students’ Preferences for Labour Conditions at a Mining Site: Evidence from Two Australian Universities," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:3:p:29-:d:330922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/3/29/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/3/29/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    2. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    3. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "Using discrete choice experiments to assess the preferences of new mining workforce to commute or relocate to the Surat Basin in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 169-180.
    4. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    5. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shuto Mikami & Yutaka Ito & Hernan Gabriel Oyola Gonzales, 2021. "Assessing Peruvian University Students’ Preferences for Labor Conditions in Mining Site," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    3. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye & Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi & Bilqis Bolanle Amole, 2013. "An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Consumer Preference for Beverage Products in Nigeria," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(6), pages 43-56, December.
    5. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    6. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    7. Shakila Yasmin & Khaled Mahmud & Farzan Afrin, 2016. "Job Attribute Preference of Executives: A Conjoint Analysis," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-68, February.
    8. Matthew Wiswall & Basit Zafar, 2018. "Preference for the Workplace, Investment in Human Capital, and Gender," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 457-507.
    9. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    10. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    11. Tor Eriksson & Nicolai Kristensen, 2014. "Wages or Fringes? Some Evidence on Trade-Offs and Sorting," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(4), pages 899-928.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. P. De Pelsmacker & L. Driesen & G. Rayp, 2003. "Are fair trade labels good business ? Ethics and coffee buying intentions," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 03/165, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    14. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    15. Nikou, Shahrokh & Bouwman, Harry, 2012. "Mobile service platform competition," 19th ITS Biennial Conference, Bangkok 2012: Moving Forward with Future Technologies - Opening a Platform for All 72515, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    16. Roest, Henk & Rindfleisch, Aric, 2010. "The influence of quality cues and typicality cues on restaurant purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 10-18.
    17. Florian Schreiber, 2017. "Identification of customer groups in the German term life market: a benefit segmentation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 365-399, July.
    18. Mahadevan, Renuka & Asafu-Adjaye, John, 2015. "Exploring the potential for green revolution: a choice experiment on maize farmers in Northern Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15.
    19. Konstantinos Pouliakas & Ioannis Theodossiou, 2010. "Measuring the Utility Cost of Temporary Employment Contracts Before Adaptation: A Conjoint Analysis Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(308), pages 688-709, October.
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).

    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:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:3:p:29-:d:330922. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.