Comparing a survey and a conjoint study: The future vision of water intermediaries

Journal of Applied Statistics

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 19-30

  Mønness, Erik ^a   Pearce, Kim ^b   Coleman, Shirley ^b  

^a INLAND NORWAY UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Norway)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Questionnaire; Survey methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 38049152979     PISSN: 02664763     EISSN: 13600532     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02664760701683379     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. European Commission (1996) Definition of SME.
2. Intermediaries (2005) EVK1-CT-2002-00115, EC New intermediary services and the transformation of urban water supply and wastewater disposal systems in Europe.
3. Malhotra, N. K. (1996) Marketing Research. An Applied Orientation. Prentice-Hall International, London, UK
4. Michaela, B. (2004) Attitudes towards severity of punishment: A conjoint analytic approach. Psychology, Crime Law, 10, pp. 205-219.
5. Moore, W. L. (1980) Levels of aggregation in conjoint analysis. An empirical comparison. J. Market. Res., pp. 516-523.
6. Pearce, K., Coleman, S. and Mønness, E. (2005) New intermediary services and the transformation of urban water supply and wastewater disposal systems in Europe: Statistical analysis of questionnaire data
7. Sattler, H. and Hensel-Börner, S. (2003) A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. Conjoint Measurement. Methods and Application, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
8. SYSTAT (2004) SYSTAT 14.