IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v21y2015i4p185-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain

Author

Listed:
  • Oviedo, José L.
  • Caparrós, Alejandro

Abstract

We test convergent validity of contingent valuation and choice modeling with field and eye-tracker data in an application for stone pine reforestations. Field results yield significantly different structural models and higher willingness to pay values in choice modeling. Eye-tracker results show that respondents devote relatively more time to attributes and the bid in choice modeling and that there are no significant differences in the total time used to answer. Divergences remain for modified formats that minimize visual and cognitive differences between methods. Using an attribute-stimulus format in contingent valuation or including dominant alternatives in choice modeling does not change results.

Suggested Citation

  • Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:21:y:2015:i:4:p:185-204
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2015.09.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1104689915000446
    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. Alejandro Caparrós & Emilio Cerdá & Paola Ovando & Pablo Campos, 2010. "Carbon Sequestration with Reforestations and Biodiversity-scenic Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 49-72, January.
    2. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    4. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-8, October.
    5. Daniel T. Knoepfle & Joseph Tao-yi Wang & Colin F. Camerer, 2009. "Studying Learning in Games Using Eye-Tracking," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 388-398, 04-05.
    6. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, August.
    8. Faical Akaichi & Rodolfo M. Nayga & José M. Gil, 2013. "Are Results from Non-hypothetical Choice-based Conjoint Analyses and Non-hypothetical Recoded-ranking Conjoint Analyses Similar?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(4), pages 949-963.
    9. 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.
    10. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    11. Magat, Wesley A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Huber, Joel, 1988. "Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 395-411, December.
    12. Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381.
    13. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    14. Hoehn, John P. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2010. "Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    18. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
    19. Krawczyk, Michał, 2012. "Testing for hypothetical bias in willingness to support a reforestation program," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 282-289.
    20. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    21. 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.
    22. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    23. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 229-236, October.
    24. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    25. Varela, Elsa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Giergiczny, Marek & Riera, Pere & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Testing the single opt-out reminder in choice experiments: An application to fuel break management in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 212-222.
    26. Ovando, Paola & Campos, Pablo & Calama, Rafael & Montero, Gregorio, 2010. "Landowner net benefit from Stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) afforestation of dry-land cereal fields in Valladolid, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 83-100, April.
    27. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    28. Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    29. 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.
    30. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    31. Mike Christie & Christopher D. Azevedo, 2009. "Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 154-170, February.
    32. Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.
    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. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    2. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    3. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2017. "Examining the relationship between visual attention and stated preferences: A discrete choice experiment using eye-tracking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 238-257.
    4. Zhang, Xumin & Khachatryan, Hayk & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "Using Mixed Logit Based Models to Control Attribute Nonattendance in Choice Experiments," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304547, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Uggeldahl, Kennet & Jacobsen, Catrine & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2016. "Choice certainty in Discrete Choice Experiments: Will eye tracking provide useful measures?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 35-48.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stone pine; Stated preferences; Elicitation formats; Information processing; Visual attention;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:eee:foreco:v:21:y:2015:i:4:p:185-204. 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: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    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.