IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea25/360616.html

Turning for the better design and preference elicitation: Consumer preferences for restaurant sustainability practices

Author

Listed:
  • Hou, Zheng
  • Hu, Wuyang
  • Xu, Yilan

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to elicit consumer preferences, yet how the assignment of attributes and levels affects respondent understanding and preference elicitation remains underexplored. Although prior studies have examined different DCE design factors, little attention has been given to the implications of swapping attributes and levels. This study aims to fill this gap by comparing two designs that reverse the roles of attributes and levels. Our results find that the design using sustainability measures as attributes improves reading ease compared to the design using sustainability outcomes as attributes. Moreover, while both designs show consistent preference patterns across choice sets, variations in willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates suggest differences in preference consistency between the two designs. These findings highlight that attribute-level assignment may have implications for both respondent and researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Hou, Zheng & Hu, Wuyang & Xu, Yilan, 2025. "Turning for the better design and preference elicitation: Consumer preferences for restaurant sustainability practices," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360616, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea25:360616
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.360616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/360616/files/75147_99024_105300_AAEA_2025_Conference_Full_Paper.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.360616?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    2. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
    3. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    4. 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, September.
    5. Qing Liu & Zhen Yan & Jiehong Zhou, 2017. "Consumer Choices and Motives for Eco-Labeled Products in China: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-12, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Romain Crastes Dit Sourd & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Post-Print hal-03712582, HAL.
    8. Mokas, Ilias & Lizin, Sebastien & Brijs, Tom & Witters, Nele & Malina, Robert, 2021. "Can immersive virtual reality increase respondents’ certainty in discrete choice experiments? A comparison with traditional presentation formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    2. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Enni Ruokamo & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Artti Juutinen & Rauli Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Working Papers 2016-30, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Danny Campbell, 2019. "Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 133-162.
    5. Sergey Turlo & Matteo Fina & Johannes Kasinger & Arash Laghaie & Thomas Otter, 2025. "Discrete choice in marketing through the lens of rational inattention," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 45-104, March.
    6. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2012. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers 2012-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    7. Masiero, Mauro & Franceschinis, Cristiano & Mattea, Stefania & Thiene, Mara & Pettenella, Davide & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Ecosystem services’ values and improved revenue collection for regional protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 136-153.
    8. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Giergiczny, Marek, "undated". "Valuing tap water quality improvements using stated preference methods. Does the number of discrete choice options matter?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274019, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Andrew Collins & John Rose & Stephane Hess, 2012. "Interactive stated choice surveys: a study of air travel behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 55-79, January.
    10. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    11. Yang, Jui-Chen & Johnson, F. Reed & Kilambi, Vikram & Mohamed, Ateesha F., 2015. "Sample size and utility-difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: A meta-simulation approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 50-57.
    12. Yau-Huo Shr & Wendong Zhang, 2021. "Does Omitting Downstream Water Quality Change the Economic Benefits of Nutrient Reduction? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp620, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    13. Chen, Xuqi & Shen, Meng & Gao, Zhifeng, "undated". "Impact of Intra-respondent Variations in Attribute Attendance on Consumer Preference in Food Choice," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258509, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. David Hensher & Andrew Collins & William Greene, 2013. "Accounting for attribute non-attendance and common-metric aggregation in a probabilistic decision process mixed multinomial logit model: a warning on potential confounding," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1003-1020, September.
    15. 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).
    16. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta & Notaro, Sandra, 2010. "The Role Of Production Methods In Fruit Purchasing Behaviour: Hypothetical Vs Actual Consumers’ Preferences And Stated Minimum Requirements," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116426, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    19. Cantillo, Víctor & Amaya, Johanna & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2010. "Thresholds and indifference in stated choice surveys," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 753-763, July.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea25:360616. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.