IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/assjnl/v12y2016i1p75-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice Experiment Attributes Selection: Problems and Approaches in a Modal Shift Study in Klang Valley, Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Kaffashi
  • Mad Nasir Shamsudin
  • Shaufique Fahmi Sidique
  • Abdullatif Bazrbachi
  • Alias Radam
  • Khalid Abdul Rahim
  • Shehu Usman Adam

Abstract

Choice experiment (CE) is a questionnaire based method that the accuracy of research questionnaire determines the validity of the research outcomes. Attribute selection has a prime importance in every CE studies. If respondents do not understand or do not have preference for a certain attribute, the attribute non-attendance problem might happen that biases overall results of the research. Qualitative approaches such as literature review, focus group discussion, and in depth discussion commonly applied in CE researches. However, especially in the developing countries context where ethnical and cultural diversity is a challenge in conducting survey based questionnaires, qualitative methods are not sufficient in selecting attributes. Present study investigates the application of relative importance index (RII) in respondents¡¯ preference for attributes in a modal shift study in Klang Valley, Malaysia. The 5 point Likert scale questions were employed to enhance respondents¡¯ preferences for initial 24 selected attributes. The results of this study showed that from 24 pre-selected attributes, only 18 of them had RII>0.5 and could be included in the final CE design. The results of this study could help researchers to control for unobserved problems in selecting the attributes which could not be discovered through qualitative approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Kaffashi & Mad Nasir Shamsudin & Shaufique Fahmi Sidique & Abdullatif Bazrbachi & Alias Radam & Khalid Abdul Rahim & Shehu Usman Adam, 2016. "Choice Experiment Attributes Selection: Problems and Approaches in a Modal Shift Study in Klang Valley, Malaysia," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(1), pages 75-83, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:assjnl:v:12:y:2016:i:1:p:75-83
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/48470
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/48470
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    2. Mohammed Alemu & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen & Carsten Jensen, 2013. "Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 333-359, March.
    3. Mohd Shahidan Shaari & Tan Lee Pei & Hafizah Abdul Rahim, 2013. "Effects of Oil Price Shocks on the Economic Sectors in Malaysia," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 3(4), pages 360-366.
    4. Dale Whittington, 2010. "What Have We Learned from 20 Years of Stated Preference Research in Less-Developed Countries?," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 209-236, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    7. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2012. "Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 235-245, March.
    8. Hall, Jane & Viney, Rosalie & Haas, Marion & Louviere, Jordan, 2004. "Using stated preference discrete choice modeling to evaluate health care programs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1026-1032, September.
    9. Hess, Stephane & Hensher, David A. & Daly, Andrew, 2012. "Not bored yet – Revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 626-644.
    10. Mylene Lagarde, 2013. "Investigating Attribute Non‐Attendance And Its Consequences In Choice Experiments With Latent Class Models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 554-567, May.
    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. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    5. Gonçalves, Tânia & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa, 2020. "Dealing with ignored attributes through an inferred approach in wine choice experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Gonçalves, Tânia & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina, 2020. "Attribute non-attendance in wine choice: Contrasts between stated and inferred approaches," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 262-275.
    9. Jourdain, Damien & Lairez, Juliette & Striffler, Bruno & Lundhede, Thomas, 2022. "A choice experiment approach to evaluate maize farmers’ decision-making processes in Lao PDR," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    10. Arne Risa Hole & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 212-224, February.
    11. Allen, S. & Goddard, E., 2018. "The Effectiveness of High Sugar Warning Labels on Breakfast Cereals," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275885, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Gonçalves, Tânia & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa, 2022. "The role of attribute non-attendance on consumer decision-making: Theoretical insights and empirical evidence," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 788-805.
    13. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2017. "Operationalization of ecosystem services for choice experiments: the effect of relevance in the valuation of agrienvironmental policies," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261433, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. 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).
    15. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 10-22.
    16. Nicolas Krucien & Jonathan Sicsic & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best–worst discrete choice experiments in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 572-586, April.
    17. Thiagu Ranganathan & Sarthak Gaurav & Ashish Singh, 2014. "Using choice experiments, we estimate the willingness to pay for price insurance among cotton and paddy farmers in the Indian state of Gujarat. We also identify the interactions between the demand for," IEG Working Papers 340, Institute of Economic Growth.
    18. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    19. DeLong, Karen L. & Syrengelas, Konstantinos G. & Grebitus, Carola & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Visual versus Text Attribute Representation in Choice Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    20. Espinosa-Goded, María & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania, 2021. "A straightforward diagnostic tool to identify attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 211-226.

    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:ibn:assjnl:v:12:y:2016:i:1:p:75-83. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.