IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v96y2020i1p1-24.html

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 subscription 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

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simona Bigerna & Andrea Marchini & Silvia Micheli & Paolo Polinori, 2023. "Pre- and during COVID-19: Households’ Willingness to Pay for Local Organic Food in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-18, June.
    2. James Macaskill & Patrick Lloyd‐Smith, 2022. "Six decades of environmental resource valuation in Canada: A synthesis of the literature," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(1), pages 73-89, March.
    3. Daniel Rondeau & Christian A. Vossler, 2024. "Incentive compatibility and respondent beliefs: Consequentiality and game form," Working Papers 2024-02, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    4. D'Alberto, Riccardo & Zavalloni, Matteo & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2021. "A Statistical Matching approach to reproduce the heterogeneity of willingness to pay in benefit transfer," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Christian A. Vossler & Ewa Zawojska, 2025. "From simple to complex: A revealed preference test of discrete choice experiment designs," Working Papers 2025-03, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    6. Xie, Lusi & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Kecinski, Maik & Fooks, Jacob R., 2022. "Using economic experiments to assess the validity of stated preference contingent behavior responses," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    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.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.