IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i4p1140-1148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Rolfe, John
  • Bennett, Jeff

Abstract

Researchers designing choice modelling experiments have some latitude over the number of choice alternatives that can be offered in each choice set. There is some evidence that design dimensions, including the number of alternatives available in each choice set, can influence model outcomes. A key issue is whether referendum formats with binary options are preferable to choice sets with multiple alternatives. A choice modelling experiment was performed where questionnaires delivered to two split samples differed only according to whether two or three alternatives were offered to respondents in each choice set. The results indicate that more robust models could be constructed from the three-alternative split compared to the two-alternative split. One reason for the difference is that respondents tended to display serial non-participation in the two-alternative format, choosing an alternative consistently without regard for changes in the attributes. For practitioners of the CM technique, the results suggest that it may be preferable to offer more than two alternatives in a choice set that includes a status quo option.

Suggested Citation

  • Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:4:p:1140-1148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(08)00356-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    2. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    3. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    4. David A. Hensher, 2004. "Identifying the Influence of Stated Choice Design Dimensionality on Willingness to Pay for Travel Time Savings," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 38(3), pages 425-446, September.
    5. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    6. Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 1995. "Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 500-515.
    7. Roger H. von Haefen & D. Matthew Massey & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 1061-1076.
    8. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    9. Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 577-601, March.
    10. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. " The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    11. Hoehn John P. & Loomis John B., 1993. "Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 56-75, July.
    12. Fischhoff, Baruch & Welch, Ned & Fredrick, Shane, 1999. "Construal Processes in Preference Assessment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 139-164, December.
    13. Jordan Louviere, 2006. "What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You: Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 173-188, May.
    14. F. Johnson, 2006. "Comment on “Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay Due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment”," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 45-50, May.
    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. 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.
    2. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    3. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Maquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2012. "Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 347-365, November.
    5. repec:eee:joreco:v:21:y:2014:i:4:p:510-519 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    7. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2010. "Restricted versus unrestricted choice in labelled choice experiments: exploring the tradeoffs of expanding choice dimensions," Research Reports 95072, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    8. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2009. "Public values for improved water security for domestic and environmental use," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47627, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. 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.
    10. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    11. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin & Boxall, Peter, 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in a choice experiment with an application to the Macquarie Marshes, AU," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252836, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "The limitations of applying benefit transfer to assess the value of ecosystem services in a “generic” peri-urban, coastal town in Australia," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152183, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. repec:kap:enreec:v:67:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10640-015-9979-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    15. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Valuation framing and attribute scope variation in a choice experiment to asses the impacts of changing land use from agriculture to mining," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Maquarie, Australia 165888, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Greiner, Romy & Ballweg, Julie, 2013. "Estimating the supply of on-farm biodiversity conservation services by north Australian pastoralists: design of a choice experiment," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152153, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Thor-Erik Hanssen, 2012. "The influence of interview location on the value of travel time savings," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1133-1145, November.
    18. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann & Priska Weller, 2015. "The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 385-407, July.
    19. Breeze, T.D. & Bailey, A.P. & Potts, S.G. & Balcombe, K.G., 2015. "A stated preference valuation of the non-market benefits of pollination services in the UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 76-85.
    20. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    21. Buhari Abdulkarim & Mohd Rusli Yacob & Ahmad Makmom Abdullah & Alias Radam, 2017. "Households Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Watershed Services Attributes in North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest Malaysia," Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(1), pages 98-109, March.
    22. Kravchenko, Alex, 2014. "Influence of rudimentary attribute non-attendance (ANA) on choice experiment parameter estimates and design efficiency: A Monte Carlo Simulation analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 57-68.
    23. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2008. "Developing a Questionnaire for Valuing Changes in Natural Resource Management in the George Catchment, Tasmania," Research Reports 94807, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    24. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:4:p:1140-1148. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.