IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v57y2019icp135-155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Glenk, Klaus
  • Meyerhoff, Jürgen
  • Akaichi, Faical
  • Martin-Ortega, Julia

Abstract

The estimation of marginal utility of income in discrete choice experiments is of crucial importance for the estimation of willingness to pay (WTP) and welfare estimates. Despite this central importance, there are only few investigations into the impact of the design of the cost attribute vector on choices and WTP estimates. We present a conceptual framework that describes why cost vector effects might occur in choice experiments, and investigate cost vector effects empirically drawing on data from a choice experiment in the context of peatland restoration in Scotland. This study employs a split sample approach with three different cost vectors that vary considerably in the cost levels offered to respondents, and investigates differences between treatments with respect to marginal WTP estimates, status quo choice, use of systematic decision strategies and attribute non-attendance. A key finding is that the choice of cost vectors can affect the incidence of decision strategies. After accounting for the differential use of a decision strategy that might not be consistent with random utility modelling, cost vectors that are higher in magnitude result in higher WTP, in line with an anchoring hypothesis. We find weak support that marginal WTP of lower income respondents is affected differently compared to higher income respondents through the use of different cost vectors. Differences in welfare estimates resulting from the use of different cost vectors might change outcomes of cost-benefit analyses. We therefore recommend that researchers include tests of sensitivity of welfare estimates to different cost vectors in their study design.

Suggested Citation

  • Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:57:y:2019:i:c:p:135-155
    DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2019.05.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765518301350
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2019.05.001?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. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 193-208.
    2. Chien, Yu-Lan & Huang, Cliff J. & Shaw, Daigee, 2005. "A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 362-377, September.
    3. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    4. Kevin J. Boyle & Hugh F. MacDonald & Hsiang-tai Cheng & Daniel W. McCollum, 1998. "Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 49-64.
    5. van Zanten, Boris T. & Koetse, Mark J. & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "Economic valuation at all cost? The role of the price attribute in a landscape preference study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 289-296.
    6. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    7. Mohammed Alemu & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen & Carsten Jensen, 2013. "Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 333-359, March.
    8. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    9. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    10. Vincenzina Caputo & Riccardo Scarpa & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2017. "Cue versus independent food attributes: the effect of adding attributes in choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 44(2), pages 211-230.
    11. Mark J. Koetse, 2017. "Effects of payment vehicle non-attendance in choice experiments on value estimates and the WTA–WTP disparity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 225-245, July.
    12. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    13. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Lagerkvist, 2007. "Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 155-164, October.
    14. Dominika Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2007. "Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 71-87, September.
    15. Jacinto Braga & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 55-89, September.
    16. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    17. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    18. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    19. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    20. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    21. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2012. "Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 235-245, March.
    22. William Desvousges & Kristy Mathews & Kenneth Train, 2015. "An Adding-up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(3), pages 556-571.
    23. Tiziana Luisetti & Ian J. Bateman & R. Kerry Turner, 2011. "Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 284-296.
    24. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    25. 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.
    26. Su, Lianfan & Adam, Brian D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Arthur, Frank, 2017. "Anchoring, Information, and Fragility of Choice Experiments: An Application to Consumer Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Storage Management," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.
    27. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    28. Richard C. Ready & Dayuan Hu, 1995. "Statistical Approaches to the Fat Tail Problem for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 491-499.
    29. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    30. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    31. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
    32. Riccardo Scarpa & Raffaele Zanoli & Viola Bruschi & Simona Naspetti, 2013. "Inferred and Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Food Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 165-180.
    33. Jonathan E. Alevy & Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2015. "Field Experiments On The Anchoring Of Economic Valuations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(3), pages 1522-1538, July.
    34. Brown, Thomas C. & Kingsley, David & Peterson, George L. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Clarke, Andrea & Birjulin, Andrej, 2008. "Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 1595-1606, July.
    35. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    36. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    37. Stephane Hess & Nesha Beharry-Borg, 2012. "Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(1), pages 109-131, May.
    38. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    39. Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1061-1076, December.
    40. Stephane Hess & Amanda Stathopoulos & Danny Campbell & Vikki O’Neill & Sebastian Caussade, 2013. "It’s not that I don’t care, I just don’t care very much: confounding between attribute non-attendance and taste heterogeneity," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 583-607, May.
    41. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    42. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
    43. Aravena, Claudia & Martinsson, Peter & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2014. "Does money talk? — The effect of a monetary attribute on the marginal values in a choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 483-491.
    44. 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.
    45. Weller, Priska & Oehlmann, Malte & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2014. "Stated and inferred attribute non-attendance in a design of designs approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 43-56.
    46. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    47. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    48. Ryan, Mandy & Wordsworth, Sarah, 2000. "Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 504-524, November.
    49. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    50. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.
    51. 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.
    52. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    53. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Emina Krcmar & Erwin H. Bulte, 2001. "Preference Uncertainty in Non-Market Valuation: A Fuzzy Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 487-500.
    54. Ariely, Dan & Loewenstein, George & Prelec, Drazen, 2006. "Tom Sawyer and the construction of value," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 1-10, May.
    55. Puckett, Sean M. & Hensher, David A., 2008. "The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 379-395, May.
    56. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    57. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    58. 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.
    59. Marit E. Kragt, 2013. "Stated and Inferred Attribute Attendance Models: A Comparison with Environmental Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 719-736, September.
    60. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    61. Sugden, Robert & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Not all anchors are created equal," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 21-31.
    62. Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega & Manuel Pulido-Velazquez & Jacqueline Potts, 2015. "Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 497-520, April.
    63. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    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. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    3. Ladenburg, Jacob & Larsen, Britt Ø. & Berger, Nichlas P. & Olsen, Leif, 2021. "Who is watching out for me? Quantifying fear of crime mitigation attributes using a choice experiment approach among adolescents and their parents," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Kristīne Pakalniete & Heini Ahtiainen & Juris Aigars & Ingrīda Andersone & Aurelija Armoškaite & Henning Sten Hansen & Solvita Strāķe, 2021. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(18), pages 1-32, September.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Hypothetical bias remains at the heart of controversy about the reliability and validity of value estimates from discrete choice experiments (DCEs). This especially applies to environmental valuation,," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    6. José Alberto Lara-Pulido & Ángela Mojica & Aaron Bruner & Alejandro Guevara-Sanginés & Cecilia Simon & Felipe Vásquez-Lavin & Cristopher González-Baca & María José Infanzón, 2021. "A Business Case for Marine Protected Areas: Economic Valuation of the Reef Attributes of Cozumel Island," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Rose, John, 2021. "Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    8. Sato, Masayuki & Aoshima, Ippei & Chang, Youngho, 2021. "Connectedness to nature and the conservation of the urban ecosystem: Perspectives from the valuation of urban forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    9. Fait, Larissa & Wetzel, Heike & Groh, Elke D., 2020. "Choice Preferences for Regional and Green Electricity: Influence of Regional and Environmental Identity," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224574, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Mariel, Petr & Artabe, Alaitz, 2020. "Interpreting correlated random parameters in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).

    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. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Thijs Dekker & Paul Koster & Roy Brouwer, 2014. "Changing with the Tide: Semiparametric Estimation of Preference Dynamics," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 717-745.
    4. Parsons, George & Yan, Lingxiao, 2021. "Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    5. Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega & Manuel Pulido-Velazquez & Jacqueline Potts, 2015. "Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 497-520, April.
    6. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    7. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    8. Caputo, Vincenzina & Loo, Ellen J. Van & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "“Using Experiments to Address Attribute Non-attendance in Consumer Food Choices”," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 177173, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2013. "Inferred vs. stated attribute non-attendance in choice experiments: A study of doctors’ prescription behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 21-31.
    10. Tomasz Gajderowicz & Gabriela Grotkowska, 2019. "Polarization of Tastes: Stated Preference Stability in Sequential Discrete Choices," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 70-87.
    11. Macario Rodríguez‐Entrena & Anastasio J. Villanueva & José A. Gómez‐Limón, 2019. "Unraveling determinants of inferred and stated attribute nonattendance: Effects on farmers’ willingness to accept to join agri‐environmental schemes," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 31-52, March.
    12. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    13. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2019. "Heterogeneity and attribute non-attendance in preferences for peatland conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 45-55.
    14. Gonçalves, Tânia & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina, 2020. "Attribute non-attendance in wine choice: Contrasts between stated and inferred approaches," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 262-275.
    15. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.
    16. Paul Hindsley & Craig E. Landry & Kurt Schnier & John C. Whitehead & Mohammadreza Zarei, 2021. "Joint Estimation of Revealed Preference Site Selection and Stated Preference Choice Experiment Recreation Data Considering Attribute NonAttendance," Working Papers 21-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    17. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.
    18. Campbell, Danny & Hensher, David A. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2012. "Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: Identification and implications," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 396-411.
    19. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    20. Meginnis, Keila & Campbell, Danny, 2017. "Students’ preferences for attributes of postgraduate economics modules: Evidence from a multi-profile best-worst scaling survey," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 18-27.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental valuation; Stated preferences; Context dependence; Anchoring; Decision strategies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:resene:v:57:y:2019:i:c:p:135-155. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505569 .

    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.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505569 .

    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.