Testing the cognitive burden of two choice modeling valuation variants. The between and within sample approaches
Scores are commonly used in environmental valuation exercises. The two main procedures when testing for score differences are the within sample and the between sample approaches. Their conclusions do not always coincide. With a case study involving scores on difficulty of responding to two choice modeling variants –contingent ranking and contingent grouping–, the paper shows the strength of the within sample approach when relying on the coherent arbitrariness principle. Results suggest that the grouping is significantly less difficult to complete than the ranking task. The validity of these results is enhanced by the fact that they are independent of the exercise order, which is tested by randomizing the sequence order in which respondents face the two methods.
Volume (Year): 30 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| |
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- 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.
- Nick Hanley & Bengt Kriström & Jason F. Shogren, 2009. "Coherent Arbitrariness: On Value Uncertainty for Environmental Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 41-50.
- Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007.
"Starting-point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys,"
Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers)
- Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2007. "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 183-194, September.
- Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, June.
- Brey, Raul & Bergland, Olvar & Riera, Pere, 2011. "A contingent grouping approach for stated preferences," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 745-755, September.
- I J Bateman & I H Langford, 1997. "Budget-constraint, temporal, and question-ordering effects in contingent valuation studies," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 29(7), pages 1215-1228, July.
- I J Bateman & I H Langford, 1997. "Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(7), pages 1215-1228, July.
- Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma J. & Philips, Zoe N. & Covey, Judith & Smith, Richard D., 2007. "On the numerical forms of contingent valuation responses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 462-476, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-10-00219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (John P. Conley)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.