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

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 253-282

  Scarpa, Riccardo ^a   Rose, John M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

C efficiency; Choice experiments; Choice modelling; Efficient experimental design; Experimental design; WTP efficiency

Indexed keywords

DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ERROR ANALYSIS; ESTIMATION METHOD; LOGIT ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL;

EID: 51349105444     PISSN: 1364985X     EISSN: 14678489     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00436.x     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Alberini, A. (1995). Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: Single-bound, double bound and bivariate models, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 287-306.
2. Arentze, T., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H. and DelMistro, R. (2003). Transport stated choice responses: Effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy, Transportation Research Part B 39, 229-244.
3. Bliemer, M.C.J. and Rose, J.M. (2005). Efficiency and Sample Size Requirements for Stated Choice Studies, working paper: ITLS-WP-05-08.
4. Bliemer, M.C.J. and Rose, J.M. (2006). Designing Stated Choice Experiments: State-of-the-art, Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Kyoto, Japan.
5. Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose, J.M. and Hensher, D.A. (in press). Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experiments Allowing for Differences in Error Variances Across Subsets of Alternatives, Transportation Research Part B.
6. Brazell, J.D. and Louviere, J.J. (1998). Length effects in conjoint choice experiments and surveys: An explanation based on cumulative cognitive burden. Working Paper, Department of Marketing, The University of Sydney, July.
7. Breffle, W.S. and Rowe, R.D. (2002). Comparing choice question formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs, Land Economics 78, 298-314.
8. Burgess, L. and Street, D.J. (2005). Optimal designs for choice experiments with asymmetric attributes, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 134, 288-301.
9. Caussade, S., Otúzar, J. de D., Rizzi, L.I. and Hensher, D.A. (2005). Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates, Transportation Research B 39, 621-640.
10. Cook, R.D. and Nachtsheim, C.J. (1980). A comparison of algorithms for constructing exact D -optimal designs, Techometrics 22, 315-324.
11. Cooke, A.D. and Mellers, B.A. (1995). Attribute range and response range: Limits of compatibility in multiattribute judgment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63, 187-194.
12. DeShazo, J.R. and Fermo, G. (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44, 123-143.
13. Ferrini, S. and Scarpa, R. (2007). Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: A Monte Carlo study, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53, 342-363.
14. Hensher, D.A. (2004). Accounting for stated choice design dimensionality in willingness to pay for travel time savings, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 38, 425-446.
15. Hensher, D.A. (2006a). Revealing differences in behavioural response due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: An initial assessment, Environmental and Resource Economics 34, 7-44.
16. Hensher, D.A. (2006b). How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load, Journal of Applied Econometrics 21, 861-878.
17. Hensher, D.A., Stopher, P.R. and Louviere, J.J. (2001). An exploratory analysis of the effect of numbers of choice sets in designed choice experiments: An airline choice application, Journal of Air Transport Management 7, 373-379.
18. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M. and Greene, W.H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Huber, J. and Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs, Journal of Marketing Research 33, 307-317.
20. Kanninen, B.J. (1993a). Optimal experimental design for double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Land Economics 69, 138-146.
21. Kanninen, B.J. (1993b). Design of sequential experiments for CV studies, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25, 1-11.
22. Kanninen, B.J. (2002). Optimal designs for multinomial choice experiment, Journal of Marketing Research 39, 214-227.
23. Kessels, R., Goos, P. and Vandebroek, M. (2004). Comparing Algorithms and Criteria for Designing Bayesian Conjoint Choice Experiments. Working paper, Department of Applied Economics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
24. Kessels, R., Goos, P. and Vandebroek, R. (2006). A comparison of criteria to design efficient choice experiments, Journal of Marketing Research 43, 409-419.
25. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A. and Swait, J.D. (2000). Stated Choice Methods - Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, UK.
26. Lusk, J.L. and Norwood, F.B. (2005). Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87, 771-785.
27. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour, in Zarembka, P. (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 105-142.
28. Ohler, T., Li, A., Louviere, J.J. and Swait, J. (2000). Attribute range effects in binary response tasks, Marketing Letters 11, 249-260.
29. Pullman, M.E., Dodson, K.J. and Moore, W.L. (1999). A comparison of conjoint methods when there are many attributes, Marketing Letters 10, 1-14.
30. Sándor, Z. and Wedel, M. (2001). Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs, Journal of Marketing Research 38, 430-444.
31. Sándor, Z. and Wedel, M. (2002). Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models, Marketing Science 21, 455-475.
32. Sándor, Z. and Wedel, M. (2005). Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs, Journal of Marketing Research 42, 210-218.
33. Scarpa, R., Campbell, D. and Hutchinson, W.G. (2007). Benefit transfer for landscape improvements: Sequential bayesian design and respondent's rationality in a choice experiment, Land Economics 83, 617-634.
34. Scarpa, R., Ferrini, S. and Willis, K.G. (2005). Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments, Ch13, in Scarpa, R. and Alberini, A. (eds), Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, pp. 247-274. Springer, Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
35. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M. and Train, K. (in press). Utility in WTP space: A tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps, American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
36. Street, D.J. and Burgess, L. (2005). Optimal and near-optimal pairs for the estimation of effects in 2-level choice experiments, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 118, 185-199.
37. Street, D.J., Bunch, D.S. and Moore, B.J. (2001). Optimal designs for 2 k paired comparison experiments, Communications in Statistics, Theory, and Methods 30, 2149-2171.
38. Street, D.J., Burgess, L. and Louviere, J.J. (2005). Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments, International of Research in Marketing 22, 459-470.
39. Swait, J. and Louviere, J. (1993). The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and use of multinomiallogit models, Journal of Marketing Research 30, 305-314.
40. Toubia, O. and Hauser, J.R. (2007). On managerially efficient experimental designs, Marketing Science 25, 851-858.
41. Train, K. (2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, UK.
42. Train, K. and Weeks, M. (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willing-to-pay space, in Scarpa, R. and Alberini, A. (eds), Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, Chapter 1, pp. 1-16. Springer Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
43. Verlegh, P.W., Schifferstein, H.N. and Wittink, D.R. (2002). Range and Number-of-Levels Effects in Derived and Stated Measures of Attribute Importance, Marketing Letters 13, 41-52.