The Impacts of Attribute Level Framing and Changing Cost Levels on Choice Experiments Value Estimates
AbstractChoice Experiments (CE) are increasingly used to estimate the values of environmental goods and services. CE questionnaires represent the environmental good under valuation by varying levels of non-market attributes. Inclusion of a cost attribute enables the estimation of monetary values for changes in the non-market attributes presented. The ways in which the levels of the attributes are described in the survey - the ‘attribute frame’ - may affect respondents’ choices. Furthermore, varying levels of the cost attribute may impact CE value estimates. The challenge for CE practitioners is to identify the ‘appropriate’ attribute frames and cost levels. In this paper, the impacts of changing cost levels and the impacts of describing non-market attributes as absolute levels or in relative terms are assessed. These tests were performed using data from a CE on catchment management in Tasmania, Australia. Contrary to a priori expectations, including explicit information cues about relative attribute levels in the choice sets is found not to affect stated preferences. However, comparisons between different split samples provide evidence that respondents’ preferences are impacted by changing the range in cost attribute levels, with higher levels leading to significantly higher estimates of WTP for one of the three environmental attributes.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia with number 59091.
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www4.agr.gc.ca
More information through EDIRC
Choice Experiments; Environmental Valuation; Bias; Tasmania; Environmental Economics and Policy;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-05-22 (All new papers)
- NEP-DCM-2010-05-22 (Discrete Choice Models)
- NEP-ENV-2010-05-22 (Environmental Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001.
"Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation,"
Working Papers in Economics
52, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Kevin Boyle & Semra Özdemir, 2009. "Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 247-264, February.
- John Rolfe & Roy Brouwer, 2011. "Testing for value stability with a meta-analysis of choice experiments: River health in Australia," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1095, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
- Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2011. "Testing for value stability with a meta-analysis of choice experiments: River health in Australia," Research Reports 107744, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.