IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Framing for incentive compatibility in choice modelling


  • Mazur, Kasia
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.


The incentives that motivate respondents to reveal their preferences truthfully have been a long-standing area of research in the non-market valuation literature. A number of studies have been undertaken to investigate incentive compatibility in nonmarket valuation. Most of these used laboratory environments rather than field surveys (e.g. Carson and Burton, 2008, Harrison, 2007, Lusk and Schroeder, 2004, Racevskis and Lupi, 2008). Only a few studies investigating incentive compatibility have considered multi-attribute public goods with an explicit provision rule in a choice experiment (Carson and Groves, 2007, Collins and Vossler, 2009, Carson and Burton, 2008). The design of a choice modelling study that avoids strategic behaviour has proven particularly difficult because of multiple choices and difficulties in developing a majority voting provision rule. This study investigates the impact of the inclusion of a framing statement for incentive compatibility in a field survey choice modelling study. An incentive compatible statement (provision rule) that sets out to respondents the rule relating to when the good under consideration will be provided was employed. The impact of a provision rule across three alternative choice modelling multiple choice questionnaires was tested by comparing results between split samples with and without a provision rule. Four split samples were used to test the impact of a provision rule on preferences across different communities including local/rural residents and distant/urban residents. A choice modelling analysis that involved a conditional logit model and a random parameter model was used to elicit household willingness to pay for improvements in environmental quality in the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. The results of the study show that the inclusion of a provision rule had an effect on preferences in the distant/urban communities. However, the impact of a provision rule in the local/rural community sub-samples was negligible. This study suggests that the impact of a provision rule should be analysed in the context of different community characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Mazur, Kasia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Framing for incentive compatibility in choice modelling," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59101, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare10:59101

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2004. "An Almost Ideal Sharing Scheme for Coalition Games with Externalities," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0414, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment.
    2. Kulmala, Soile & Laukkanen, Marita & Michielsens, Catherine, 2008. "Reconciling economic and biological modeling of migratory fish stocks: Optimal management of the Atlantic salmon fishery in the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 716-728, February.
    3. Pham Do, K.H. & Folmer, H., 2003. "International Fisheries Agreements : The Feasibility and Impacts of Partial Cooperation," Discussion Paper 2003-52, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Marita Laukkanen, 2001. "A Bioeconomic Analysis of the Northern Baltic Salmon Fishery: Coexistence versus Exclusion of Competing Sequential Fisheries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 293-315, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Choice modelling; Incentive comparability; Provision rule; Non-market valuation; Environment; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:aare10:59101. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.