IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v34y2006i1p173-188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You: Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Jordan Louviere

Abstract

The papers and comments in this issue focus on four broad areas related to understanding and modeling choices: (1) The use of laboratory experiments to improve valuation methods; (2) The design of stated preference choice set and choice occasions; (3) Latent class models as means of identifying and accommodating preference heterogeneity; and (4) Accommodating uncertainty about the “true” model, modeling ranking and rating tasks and pooling data sources. In what follows I offer some comments on each area, and briefly discuss several unresolved issues associated with each area, closing with some comments about future research opportunities. Copyright Springer 2006

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:34:y:2006:i:1:p:173-188
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-005-4817-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-005-4817-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-005-4817-0?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. David Layton & S. Lee, 2006. "Embracing Model Uncertainty: Strategies for Response Pooling and Model Averaging," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 51-85, 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. Smirnov, Oleg A. & Egan, Kevin J., 2012. "Spatial random utility model with an application to recreation demand," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 72-78.
    2. Veisten, Knut & Flügel, Stefan & Rizzi, Luis I. & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Elvik, Rune, 2013. "Valuing casualty risk reductions from estimated baseline risk," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 50-61.
    3. Flynn, Terry Nicholas & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1957-1965, June.
    4. León, Carmelo J. & de León, Javier & Araña, Jorge E. & González, Matías M., 2015. "Tourists' preferences for congestion, residents' welfare and the ecosystems in a national park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 21-29.
    5. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    6. Angelina L�zaro Alqu�zar & Bego�a �lvarez Farizo, 2006. "Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists: a community workshop approach," Documentos de Trabajo dt2006-08, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Zaragoza.
    7. 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.
    8. Chavez, Daniel & Palma, Marco, 2015. "Off the reservation: Pushing the bounds of rationality in experimental auctions," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202164, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
    10. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Boeri, Marco & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "Trading off dietary choices, physical exercise and cardiovascular disease risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-138.
    11. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    12. Carmelo J. León & Jorge E. Araña, 2012. "The Dynamics of Preference Elicitation after an Environmental Disaster: Stability and Emotional Load," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 362-381.
    13. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    14. Terry Flynn, 2009. "Jordan Louviere, PhD," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(2), pages 73-75, June.
    15. Jordan Louviere & Joffre Swait, 2010. "—Discussion of “Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test”," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 18-22, 01-02.
    16. Lipovetsky, Stan & Conklin, Michael, 2014. "Finding items cannibalization and synergy by BWS data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 1-9.
    17. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    18. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian E., 2010. "Consumer willingness-to-pay to reduce the probability of retail foodborne pathogen contamination," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 521-530, December.
    19. Que, Sisi & Awuah-Offei, Kwame & Weidner, Nathan & Wang, Yumin, 2017. "Discrete choice experiment validation: A resource project case study," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 39-50.
    20. Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722, September.
    21. 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.
    22. Takama, Takeshi & Tsephel, Stanzin & Johnson, Francis X., 2012. "Evaluating the relative strength of product-specific factors in fuel switching and stove choice decisions in Ethiopia. A discrete choice model of household preferences for clean cooking alternatives," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1763-1773.
    23. 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.
    24. Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica, 2012. "Facilitating healthy choice at the point of sale: fine-tuning nutrition labels versus editing choice?," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium 122731, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    25. Smirnov, Oleg A., 2010. "Modeling spatial discrete choice," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 292-298, September.

    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. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.

    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:kap:enreec:v:34:y:2006:i:1:p:173-188. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.