Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 122-139

  Siikamäki, Juha ^a   Layton, David F ^b  

^a RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Data pooling; Discrete choice methods; Habitat conservation; Nonmarket valuation; Random coefficients; Rayleigh; Stated preferences

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RANDOM PROCESSES;

DATA POOLING; DISCRETE CHOICE METHODS; HABITAT CONSERVATION; NONMARKET VALUATION; RANDOM COEFFICIENTS; STATED PREFERENCES;

INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECONOMETRICS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; RANKING; RATING CURVE;

EID: 33845940429     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2006.04.003     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Desvousges W.H., and Smith V.K. Option price estimates for water quality improvements: a contingent valuation study for Monongahela River. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 14 (1983) 248-267
2. Magat W.A., Viscusi W.K., and Huber J. Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 15 (1988) 395-411
3. Ready R., Whitehead J., and Blomquist G. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 29 (1995) 181-197
4. Stevens T.H., Belkner R., Dennis D., Kittredge D., and Willis C. Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecol. Econom. 32 (2000) 63-74
5. Boxall P., Adamowicz W., Swait J., Williams M., and Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econom. 18 (1996) 243-253
6. Welsh M.P., and Poe G.L. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 36 (1998) 170-185
7. Hensher D., Louviere J., and Swait J. Combining sources of preference data. J. Econom. 89 (1999) 197-221
8. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
9. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., and Williams M. M, Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 26 (1994) 271-292
10. Cameron T.A. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of nonmarket goods. Land Econom. 68 (1992) 302-317
11. Kling C.L. The gains from combining travel cost and contingent valuation data to value nonmarket goods. Land Econom. 73 (1997) 428-439
12. Huang J., Haab T., and Whitehead J. Willingness-to-pay for quality improvements: should revealed and stated preferences be combined?. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 34 (1997) 240-255
13. Azevedo C.D., Herriges J.A., and Kling C.L. Combining revealed and stated preferences: consistency tests and their interpretations. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85 3 (2003) 525-537
14. Boxall P., Englin J., and Adamowicz W. Valuing aboriginal artifact: a combined revealed-stated preference application. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 45 (2003) 213-230
15. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., and Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80 (1998) 64-75
16. Cameron T.A., Poe G.L., Ethier R.G., and Schulze W.D. Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: are underlying preferences the same?. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 44 3 (2002) 391-425
17. Halvorsen B. Comparing ranking and contingent valuation for valuing human lives, applying nested and non-nested logit models. Environ. Res. Econom. 17 (2000) 1-19
18. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econom. 74 (1998) 230-239
19. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
20. Train K. A comparison of hierarchical bayes and maximum simulated likelihood for mixed logit (2001), Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley
21. McFadden D., and Train K. Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response. J. App. Econom. 15 (2000) 447-470
22. Chen H.Z., and Cosslett S.R. Environmental quality and preference estimation in multinomial probit models: a simulation approach. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80 (1998) 512-520
23. Layton D.F. Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 40 (2000) 21-36
24. Layton D.F., and Brown G. Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev. Econom. Stat. 82 (2000) 616-624
25. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 30 (1996) 112-131
26. Cummings R.G., Elliott S., Harrison G.W., and Murphy J. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?. J. Pol. Econ. 105 (1997) 609-621
27. T.C. Haab, J.-C. Huang, J. C. Whitehead, Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? A comment, J. Pol. Econ. 107, 186-196.
28. Boyle K.J., Holmes T.H., Teisl M.F., and Roe B.A. A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 32 (2001) 441-454
29. Chapman R.G., and Staelin R. Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J. Market Res. 19 (1982) 288-301
30. Hausman J.A., and Ruud P.A. Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. J. Econom. 34 (1987) 83-104
31. Ben-Akiva M.E., Morikawa T., and Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J. Bus. Res. 23 3 (1991) 253-268
32. Foster V., and Mourato S. Testing for consistency in contingent ranking experiments. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 44 (2002) 309-328
33. Hensher D., and Green W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30 2 (2003) 133-176
34. Train K., and Sonnier G. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In: Scarpa R., and Alberini A. (Eds). Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (2005), Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
35. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in Econom. (1974), Academic Press, New York
36. Haab T.C., and McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Nonmarket Valuation (2002), Edward Elgar
37. Beggs S., Cardell S., and Hausman J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J. Econom. 16 (1981) 1-19
38. Hanemann M.W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66 (1984) 332-341
39. Hanemann M.W., Loomis J., and Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73 (1991) 1255-1263
40. Hanemann M.W., and Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Bateman I., and Willis K. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing countries (1999), Oxford University Press, Oxford
41. Cameron T.A., and Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 27 (1994) 218-234
42. Revelt D., and Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choice: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econom. Stat. 80 (1998) 647-657
43. Brownstone D., and Train K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J. Econom. 89 (1999) 109-129
44. Swait J., and Louviere J. The role of scale parameter in the estimation and use of generalized extreme utility models. J. Market. Res. 10 (1993) 23-45
45. Banzhaf H.S., Burtraw D., Evans D., and Krupnick A.J. Valuation of Natural Resources in the Adirondacks. Land Econom. 82 (2006) 445-464
46. Layton D.F., and Lee S.T. From ratings to rankings: the econometric analysis of stated preference ratings data. In: Halvorsen R., and Layton D.F. (Eds). Explorations in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: Essays in Honor of Gardner M. Brown, (2006), Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK
47. Pollak R.A., and Wales T.R. The likelihood dominance criterion: a new approach to model selection. J. Econom. 47 (1991) 227-242
48. J. Siikamäki, Discrete Choice Experiments for Valuing Biodiversity Conservation in Finland, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis, 2001.
49. Johnson N.L. Systems of frequency curves generated by methods of translation. Biometrika 36 1/2 (1949) 149-176
50. Krinsky I., and Robb A. Approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econom. Stat. 68 (1986) 715-719
51. Alberini A., Kanninen B., and Carson R.T. Modeling response incentives in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Econom. 73 (1997) 309-324
52. DeShazo J.R., and Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 43 (2002) 360-385
53. D. Hensher, Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment, Working paper, Institute of Transport Studies, University of Sydney, 2003. Environ. Res. Econom. 34 (1) (2006) 7-44.
54. Johnson N.L., Kotz S., and Balakrishnan N. Continuous Univariate Distributions. 2nd ed (1994), Wiley, New York