IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipp/wpaper/1401.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data

Author

Listed:
  • José L. Oviedo
  • Alejandro Caparrós

Abstract

We compare contingent valuation and choice modeling with field and eye-tracker data. Contrary to previous research, results yield significantly different structural models. These divergences remain for modified formats that minimize visual and cognitive differences between formats. We also find divergent results concerning information processing. In choice modeling, respondents devote more time to attributes, including the bid, although total answering time does not vary. Presenting several questions with varying attribute levels works for choice modeling but not for contingent valuation. Using the attribute-stimulus format does not change contingent valuation results. Dominated alternatives increase the probability of paying in choice modeling.

Suggested Citation

  • José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    • Handle: RePEc:ipp:wpaper:1401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://investigacion.cchs.csic.es/RePEc/ipp/wpaper/csic-ipp-wp-2014-01_oviedo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-8, October.
    2. Daniel T. Knoepfle & Joseph Tao-yi Wang & Colin F. Camerer, 2009. "Studying Learning in Games Using Eye-Tracking," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 388-398, 04-05.
    3. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    4. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    5. Hoehn, John P. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2010. "Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-23, December.
    6. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00731244 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 817-839.
    8. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
    9. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 229-236, October.
    10. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    12. Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos, 2008. "Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 843-855.
    13. Mike Christie & Christopher D. Azevedo, 2009. "Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 154-170, February.
    14. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    15. 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.
    16. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    17. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    18. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    19. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    20. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
    21. Marije Schaafsma & Roy Brouwer & Alison Gilbert & Jeroen van den Bergh & Alfred Wagtendonk, 2013. "Estimation of Distance-Decay Functions to Account for Substitution and Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Research," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 514-537.
    22. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    23. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    24. Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    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. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    2. Kemeze, Francis H., 2020. "Demand for Supplemental Irrigation via Small-Scale Water Harvesting," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304569, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    2. 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.
    3. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    4. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    5. 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.
    6. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    7. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    8. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    9. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    10. Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2013. "Inferred vs. stated attribute non-attendance in choice experiments: A study of doctors’ prescription behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 21-31.
    11. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    12. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    13. Mathews, Leah Greden & Kask, Susan B. & Stewart, Steve, 2004. "The Value Of The View: Valuing Scenic Quality Using Choice And Contingent Valuation Models," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20049, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    15. Gonzalez, Matias & Leon, Carmelo J., 2003. "Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 159-169, June.
    16. Tran Tuan & Stale Navrud, 2007. "Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 51-69, September.
    17. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    18. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    19. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    20. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    stated preferences; environmental valuation; elicitation formats; eye-tracking;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • 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:ipp:wpaper:1401. 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: Adelheid Holl (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ippcses.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.