IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v65y2014i2p446-462.html

Using Attribute Importance Rankings Within Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Valuing Bread Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Kelvin Balcombe
  • Michail Bitzios
  • Iain Fraser
  • Janet Haddock-Fraser

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="jage12051-abs-0001"> We present a new Bayesian econometric specification for a hypothetical Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) incorporating respondent ranking information about attribute importance. Our results indicate that a DCE debriefing question that asks respondents to rank the importance of attributes helps to explain the resulting choices. We also examine how mode of survey delivery (online and mail) impacts model performance, finding that results are not substantively affected by the mode of survey delivery. We conclude that the ranking data are a complementary source of information about respondent utility functions within hypothetical DCEs.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelvin Balcombe & Michail Bitzios & Iain Fraser & Janet Haddock-Fraser, 2014. "Using Attribute Importance Rankings Within Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Valuing Bread Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 446-462, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:65:y:2014:i:2:p:446-462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/jage.2014.65.issue-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Herring, Matthew W. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Zander, Kerstin K., 2022. "Producing rice while conserving the habitat of an endangered waterbird: Incentives for farmers to integrate water management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Kang, Moon Jeong & Siry, Jacek P. & Colson, Gregory & Ferreira, Susana, 2019. "Do forest property characteristics reveal landowners' willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services contracts in southeast Georgia, U.S.?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 144-152.
    3. François-Charles Wolff & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Brice Trouillet & Alexia Pigeault & Nicolas Rollo, 2026. "Participatory democracy in question: The case of “the sea in debate”," Post-Print hal-05473955, HAL.
    4. Shiwen Quan & Yinchu Zeng & Xiaohua Yu & Te Bao, 2018. "WTP for baby milk formula in China: Using attribute nonattendance as a priori information to select attributes in choice experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 300-320, March.
    5. Kliem, Lea & Sagebiel, Julian, 2023. "Consumers' preferences for commons-based and open-source produce: A discrete choice experiment with directional information manipulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia L. Rihn & Benjamin Campbell & Chengyan Yue & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2017. "Visual Attention to Eco-Labels Predicts Consumer Preferences for Pollinator Friendly Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-14, September.
    7. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    8. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    9. Marjolein Harmsen - van Hout & Gaurav Ghosh & Reinhard Madlener, 2013. "An Evaluation of Attribute Anchoring Bias in a Choice Experimental Setting," FCN Working Papers 6/2013, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    10. Eeva ALHO, 2019. "Farmers’ Willingness To Invest In New Cooperative Instruments: A Choice Experiment," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 90(1), pages 161-186, March.
    11. Oyinbo, O. & Maertens, M. & Chamberlin, J. & Vanlauwe, B. & Craufurd, P. & Kamara, A., 2018. "Maize Farmers Preferences for ICT-based extension services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Nigeria," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    13. Rebecca Owusu Coffie & Michael P. Burton & Fiona L. Gibson & Atakelty Hailu, 2016. "Choice of Rice Production Practices in Ghana: A Comparison of Willingness to Pay and Preference Space Estimates," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 799-819, September.
    14. Kyriakos Riskos & Paraskevi (Evi) Dekoulou & Naoum Mylonas & George Tsourvakas, 2021. "Ecolabels and the Attitude–Behavior Relationship towards Green Product Purchase: A Multiple Mediation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Eeva Alho, 2017. "Attention to Risk and Return: Choice Experiment of the Stated and Inferred Use of Investment Attributes," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 4(1), pages 43-52, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco

    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:bla:jageco:v:65:y:2014:i:2:p:446-462. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.