IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v35y2020ics1755534520300038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying most typical and most ideal attribute levels in small populations of expert decision makers: Studying the Go/No Go decision of disaster relief organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Isihara, Paul
  • Shi, Chaojun
  • Ward, Jonathan
  • O'Malley, Leo
  • Laney, Skyler
  • Diedrichs, Danilo
  • Flores, Gabriel

Abstract

This paper proposes the use of Most Typical (MT) and Most Ideal (MI) levels when an adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) survey can only obtain a small sample size n from a small population size N. This situation arises when expert decision makers are surveyed from among important small populations such as executives of large companies or political leaders, for which the expert decision maker assumption is reasonable. The paper compares respondents' MT levels obtained using the Build Your Own (BYO) question with MI levels obtained using part-worth utilities. The MI levels are validated using the Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (PAPRIKA) method. It then explores differences in MT/MI levels for two related populations using an application concerning disaster relief. For effective disaster relief coordination, humanitarian organizations must understand each other's response decisions. An ACBC survey on the “Go/No-Go” decision by 49 faith-based (FBOs) and 12 non faith-based (NFBOs) disaster relief organizations considered four attributes: Funding, Disaster Response Type, Need Assessment, and Community Access. There was disparity between MT/MI Funding levels: 18 of 19 respondents reported MT levels of 50% or less, but 12 of 19 estimated to have MI levels of at least 75%. Greatest similarity between FBOs and NFBOs was observed for MI Need Assessment. Greatest disagreement of MI levels determined by part-worths and PAPRIKA was for Need Assessment and Disaster Response Type. To handle zero counts in the sample frequency distributions, we include a mathematical appendix explaining our use of a Bayesian rather than maximum likelihood estimation of MT/MI population frequency distributions.

Suggested Citation

  • Isihara, Paul & Shi, Chaojun & Ward, Jonathan & O'Malley, Leo & Laney, Skyler & Diedrichs, Danilo & Flores, Gabriel, 2020. "Identifying most typical and most ideal attribute levels in small populations of expert decision makers: Studying the Go/No Go decision of disaster relief organizations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:35:y:2020:i:c:s1755534520300038
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534520300038
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100204?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Richard Johnson, 1975. "A simple method for pairwise monotone regression," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 40(2), pages 163-168, June.
    2. K. Janardan, 1976. "Certain estimation problems for multivariate hypergeometric models," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 28(1), pages 429-444, December.
    3. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, January.
    4. Erica Gralla & Jarrod Goentzel & Charles Fine, 2014. "Assessing Trade-offs among Multiple Objectives for Humanitarian Aid Delivery Using Expert Preferences," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(6), pages 978-989, June.
    5. Abbas Moghimbeigi & Mohammed Reza Eshraghian & Kazem Mohammad & Brian Mcardle, 2008. "Multilevel zero-inflated negative binomial regression modeling for over-dispersed count data with extra zeros," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(10), pages 1193-1202.
    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. Daouda KAMISSOKO & Didier Gourc & François Marmier & Antoine Clement, 2022. "A Go/No-Go Decision-Making Model Based on Risk and Multi-Criteria Techniques for Project Selection," International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), IGI Global, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, December.

    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. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    2. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    3. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    4. Mengelkamp, Esther & Schönland, Thomas & Huber, Julian & Weinhardt, Christof, 2019. "The value of local electricity - A choice experiment among German residential customers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 294-303.
    5. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    6. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    7. Li Zhu & Yeming Gong & Yishui Xu & Jun Gu, 2019. "Emergency Relief Routing Models for Injured Victims Considering Equity and Priority," Post-Print hal-02879681, HAL.
    8. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Ferrer, José M. & Martín-Campo, F. Javier & Ortuño, M. Teresa & Pedraza-Martínez, Alfonso J. & Tirado, Gregorio & Vitoriano, Begoña, 2018. "Multi-criteria optimization for last mile distribution of disaster relief aid: Test cases and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 501-515.
    10. Xiang Wu & Bin Hu & Jie Xiong, 2020. "Understanding Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences in Chinese Milk Markets: A Latent Class Approach," Post-Print hal-02489646, HAL.
    11. Ohad Eisenhandler & Michal Tzur, 2019. "A Segment-Based Formulation and a Matheuristic for the Humanitarian Pickup and Distribution Problem," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 1389-1408, September.
    12. Jónas Oddur Jónasson & Kamalini Ramdas & Alp Sungu, 2022. "Social impact operations at the global base of the pyramid," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4364-4378, December.
    13. Poulissen, Davey & de Grip, Andries & Fouarge, Didier & Künn, Annemarie, 2021. "Employers’ willingness to invest in the training of temporary workers: a discrete choice experiment," Research Memorandum 010, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    14. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    15. Aurelie Charles & Matthieu Lauras & Luk N. van Wassenhove & Lionel Dupont, 2016. "Designing an efficient humanitarian supply network," Post-Print hal-01532132, HAL.
    16. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    17. Basem Al-Omari & Joviana Farhat & Mujahed Shraim, 2023. "The Role of Web-Based Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Technology in Eliciting Patients’ Preferences for Osteoarthritis Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-15, February.
    18. Chong Hyun Park & Gemma Berenguer, 2020. "Supply Constrained Location‐Distribution in Not‐for‐Profit Settings," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(11), pages 2461-2483, November.
    19. Yang, Yongjian & Yin, Yunqiang & Wang, Dujuan & Ignatius, Joshua & Cheng, T.C.E. & Dhamotharan, Lalitha, 2023. "Distributionally robust multi-period location-allocation with multiple resources and capacity levels in humanitarian logistics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(3), pages 1042-1062.
    20. Sunghi An & Daisik Nam & R. Jayakrishnan & Soongbong Lee & Michael G. McNally, 2021. "A Study of the Factors Affecting Multimodal Ridesharing with Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-14, October.

    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:eejocm:v:35:y:2020:i:c:s1755534520300038. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.