IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v96y2020i1p1-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Lloyd-Smith
  • Ewa Zawojska
  • Wiktor Adamowicz

Abstract

We reexamine the literature comparing contingent valuation (CV) and choice experiments (CEs) in terms of stated preference design features, and empirically investigate an understudied dimension in these comparisons, namely, presentation effects. Structured analysis of the literature suggests that the comparisons of CV and CEs as broad descriptive terms may mask the many design and methodological differences seen in implementations of the approaches. In the empirical component, we find preference disclosure to be unaffected by text and table presentation formats in elicitation tasks, except when only the first task is considered. Implications of our findings for stated preference research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:96:y:2020:i:1:p:1-24
    Note: DOI: 10.3368/le.96.1.1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/96/1/1
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Petrolia, Daniel & Interis, Matthew & Hwang, Joonghyun, 2015. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Working Papers 212479, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Bettman, James R & Kakkar, Pradeep, 1977. "Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(4), pages 233-240, March.
    5. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2011. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 554-571, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Luchini, S. & Watson, V., 2014. "Are choice experiments reliable? Evidence from the lab," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 9-13.
    8. Savannah Wei Shi & Michel Wedel & F. G. M. (Rik) Pieters, 2013. "Information Acquisition During Online Decision Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1009-1026, May.
    9. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    10. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Dupont, Diane & Krupnick, Alan & Zhang, Jing, 2011. "Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-226, March.
    17. Abou-Ali, Hala, 2003. "Using stated preference methods to evaluate the impact of water on health: the case of metropolitan Cairo," Working Papers in Economics 113, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    20. 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.
    21. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    22. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    23. 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.
    24. Bettman, James R & Zins, Michel A, 1979. "Information Format and Choice Task Effects in Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 141-153, Se.
    25. J. Price & D. Dupont & W. Adamowicz, 2017. "As Time Goes By: Examination of Temporal Stability Across Stated Preference Question Formats," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 643-662, November.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. 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.
    30. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents," Working Papers 2004.100, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • 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:uwp:landec:v:96:y:2020:i:1:p:1-24. 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://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.