IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eerhrr/107575.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups

Author

Listed:
  • McCartney, Abbie
  • Cleland, Jonelle

Abstract

The hypothetical nature of choice modelling surveys makes it difficult to enforce incentive compatible properties. It is thought that bias may result through strategic behaviour and untruthful responses, given that the hypothetical choice scenarios and payment structure are not binding. This study examines three methods of addressing incentive compatibility through survey framing: (1) a statement of consequence; (2) use of an ‘honesty’ script that openly explains how the data are to be analysed and used; and (3) use of a provision rule that defines how survey outcomes relate to actual implementation. Focus groups, involving members of the public, were held to investigate participants’ reactions to the three framing treatments. The provision rule emerged as the preferred treatment in terms of being more realistic than the alternatives. The rule did not need to be 100% binding to have the desired effect of inducing realism. However, the participants did not believe that their responses to the choice scenarios would have changed between framing treatments. Empirical testing is required to determine if this is actually the case. Other reassuring results were found in relation to how participants interpreted the general choice scenario instructions, particularly in terms of answering questions independently and as an individual consumer. This provides evidence that respondents make choices in response to the questions as they are intended by the researcher.

Suggested Citation

  • McCartney, Abbie & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups," Research Reports 107575, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eerhrr:107575
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.107575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/107575/files/EERH_RR76.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.107575?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gabriela Scheufele & Jeff Bennett, 2013. "Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 214-233, April.
    2. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    3. Michael Burton, 2010. "Inducing Strategic Bias: and its implications for Choice Modelling design," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1061, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    4. Stephen K. Swallow & Michael P. McGonagle, 2006. "Public Funding of Environmental Amenities: Contingent Choices Using New Taxes or Existing Revenues for Coastal Land Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 56-67.
    5. McCartney, Abbie, 2009. "The Policy Relevance of Choice Modelling: An Application to the Ningaloo and Proposed Capes Marine Parks," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48033, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    7. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
    8. Blamey, Russell K. & Common, Mick S. & Quiggin, John C., 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 1-26, December.
    9. Racevskis, Laila A. & Lupi, Frank, 2008. "Incentive Compatibility in an Attribute-Based Referendum Model," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6477, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Mazur, Kasia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "The Effects of a Provision Rule in Choice Modelling," Research Reports 94945, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. Bulte, Erwin & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 330-342, March.
    12. Blamey, Russell K. & Common, Mick S. & Quiggin, John C., 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens? - Reply," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 1-4, August.
    13. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    14. John Rolfe & Jeffrey W. Bennett, 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens (Blamey, Common And Quiggin, Ajae 39:3) — A Comment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 129-133, August.
    15. John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
    16. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Hensher, David A., 2010. "Strategic response to a sequence of discrete choice questions," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59102, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. John Rolfe & Jeff Bennett (ed.), 2006. "Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3336, November.
    18. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    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. Jonelle Cleland & Abbie Rogers, 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition:a knowledge base approach," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1079, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    3. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.

    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. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    2. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, 2017. "Disentangling impacts of payment and provision consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258602, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Tenaw G. Abate & Morten R. Mørkbak & Søren B. Olsen, 2018. "Inducing value and institutional learning effects in stated choice experiments using advanced disclosure and instructional choice set treatments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 339-351, May.
    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. 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.
    7. Abbie A. Rogers, 2013. "Public and Expert Preference Divergence: Evidence from a Choice Experiment of Marine Reserves in Australia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 346-370.
    8. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    9. Riera, Pere & Signorello, Giovanni & Thiene, Mara & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Navrud, Ståle & Kaval, Pamela & Rulleau, Benedicte & Mavsar, Robert & Madureira, Lívia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Elsasser, Pe, 2012. "Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 259-270.
    10. Malte Oehlmann & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2017. "Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany – do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2015. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    12. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Vossler, Christian A. & Budziński, Wiktor & Wiśniewska, Aleksandra & Zawojska, Ewa, 2017. "Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preferences methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 47-63.
    13. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2017. "Expert judgements and public values: preference heterogeneity for protecting ecology in the Swan River, Western Australia," Working Papers 254025, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," NBER Working Papers 19289, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2018. "Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?," Cahiers de recherche 18-02, Departement d'Economique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    16. Dominique Ami & Frédéric Aprahamian & Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini, 2011. "A Test of Cheap Talk in Different Hypothetical Contexts: The Case of Air Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 111-130, September.
    17. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    18. Burton, Michael & Jasmine Zahedi, Shegufa & White, Ben, 2012. "Public preferences for timeliness and quality of mine site rehabilitation. The case of bauxite mining in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-9.
    19. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 306-318.
    20. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani, 2009. "The Value of Reducing Cancer Risks at Contaminated Sites: Are More Heavily Exposed People Willing to Pay More?," Working Papers 2009.60, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:eerhrr:107575. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/asanuau.html .

    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/asanuau.html .

    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.