IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare01/125988.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing alternative questionnaire formats for communicating trade-offs in environmental Choice Modelling

Author

Listed:
  • van Bueren, Martin
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

Choice Modelling is a stated preference technique for valuing non-market goods. It has the potential to provide researchers with a rich data set with which to analyse consumer trade-offs between environmental, monetary and social impacts of resource management policies. However, this strength comes at the expense of greater questionnaire complexity relative to other stated preference techniques such as Contingent Valuation. This study examines whether communication aspects of the Choice Modelling questionnaires can be improved through the use of visual stimuli. Split-sample experiments are conducted to test response differences between a ‘scaled icons’ version of the questionnaire and a conventional ‘numbers-only’ version. It is found that the different questionnaire versions do not produce significant differences in response rate or preference structures.

Suggested Citation

  • van Bueren, Martin & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2001. "Testing alternative questionnaire formats for communicating trade-offs in environmental Choice Modelling," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125988, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare01:125988
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.125988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/125988/files/vanBueren1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.125988?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2001. "Valuing Alternative Wetland Management Strategies using Choice Modelling," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 126063, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. 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.
    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Martin Van Bueren & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32, March.
    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. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    6. Veeman, Michele M. & Unterschultz, James R., 2000. "Pork Market Development Research Project: Market Potential For Alberta'S Pork In Selected U.S. Markets," Project Report Series 24054, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    8. Tabi, Andrea & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2014. "What makes people seal the green power deal? — Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 206-215.
    9. Chang, Jae Bong & Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K., 2009. "Health Concerns and Consumer Preferences for Soy Foods: Choice Modeling Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49591, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Lienhoop, Nele & Ansmann, Till, 2011. "Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1250-1258, May.
    11. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Cooper, Joseph C., 1997. "Combining Actual And Contingent Behavior Data To Model Farmer Adoption Of Water Quality Protection Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-14, July.
    13. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    14. Anowar, Sabreena & Eluru, Naveen & Hatzopoulou, Marianne, 2017. "Quantifying the value of a clean ride: How far would you bicycle to avoid exposure to traffic-related air pollution?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 66-78.
    15. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    16. Yu‐Lin Hsu & Gavin C. Reid, 2021. "Two‐stage decision‐making within the firm: Analysis and case studies," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(6), pages 1355-1373, September.
    17. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    18. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    19. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aare01:125988. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.