IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/12-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Marginal Willingness-to-Pay for Attributes of a Hypothetical HIV Vaccine

Author

Listed:
  • Michael P. Cameron

    (University of Waikato)

  • Peter A. Newman

    (University of Toronto)

  • Surachet Roungprakhon

    (Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon)

  • Riccardo Scarpa

    (University of Waikato)

Abstract

This paper estimates the marginal willingness-to-pay for attributes of a hypothetical HIV vaccine using discrete choice modeling. We use primary data from 326 respondents from Bangkok and Chiang Mai, Thailand, in 2008-2009, selected using purposive, venue-based sampling across two strata. Participants completed a structured questionnaire and full rank discrete choice modelling task administered using computer-assisted personal interviewing. The choice experiment was used to rank eight hypothetical HIV vaccine scenarios, with each scenario comprising seven attributes (including cost) each of which had two levels. The data were analyzed in two alternative specifications: (1) best-worst; and (2) full-rank, using logit likelihood functions estimated with custom routines in Gauss matrix programming language. Knowledge of the relative importance of determinants of HIV vaccine acceptability is important to ensure the success of future vaccination programs. Future acceptability studies of hypothetical HIV vaccines should use more finely-grained biomedical attributes, and could also improve the external validity of results by including more levels of the cost attribute.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael P. Cameron & Peter A. Newman & Surachet Roungprakhon & Riccardo Scarpa, 2012. "The Marginal Willingness-to-Pay for Attributes of a Hypothetical HIV Vaccine," Working Papers in Economics 12/11, University of Waikato.
    • Handle: RePEc:wai:econwp:12/11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/1211.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McConnell K. E., 1995. "Consumer Surplus from Discrete Choice Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 263-270, November.
    2. Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos, 2008. "Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 843-855.
    3. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    4. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    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. 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.

    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. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    2. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 817-839.
    3. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    6. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    9. Yan, Jin & Yoo, Hong Il, 2019. "Semiparametric estimation of the random utility model with rank-ordered choice data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 414-438.
    10. Upton, Vincent & Dhubháin, Áine Ní & Bullock, Craig, 2012. "Preferences and values for afforestation: The effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 17-27.
    11. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    12. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    13. Marsh, Dan & Phillips, Yvonne, 2012. "Difficult Choices: What Influences the Error Variance in a Choice Experiment," 2012 Conference, August 31, 2012, Nelson, New Zealand 139651, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Dan Marsh & Yvonne Phillips, 2012. "Which Future for the Hurunui? Combining Choice Analysis with Stakeholder Consultation," Working Papers in Economics 12/17, University of Waikato.
    15. Mondal, Aupal & Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "A spatial rank-ordered probit model with an application to travel mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 374-393.
    16. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    17. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    18. Fancello, Giovanna & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2021. "Learning urban capabilities from behaviours. A focus on visitors values for urban planning," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    19. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "Willingness to Pay for Low Probability, Low Loss Hazard Insurance," Working Papers 06-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    20. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    HIV vaccine; willingness-to-pay; conjoint analysis; discrete choice; Thailand;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wai:econwp:12/11. 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: Geua Boe-Gibson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaknz.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.