IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/een/eenhrr/1076.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Abbie McCartney

    () (School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia)

  • Jonelle Cleland

    () (School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia)

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

  • Abbie McCartney & Jonelle Cleland, 2010. "Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1076, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
  • Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR76.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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), September.
    5. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?— Reply," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 135-138, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens (Blamey, Common And Quiggin, Ajae 39:3) - A Comment," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(02), August.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    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. Abbie Rogers & Jonelle Cleland, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley's Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1080, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Cleland, Jonelle & Rogers, Abbie A., 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: a knowledge base approach," Research Reports 107578, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.

    More about this item

    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:een:eenhrr:1076. 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: (CAP Web Team). General contact details of provider: http://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 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.