Convergent validity of attribute-based, choice questions in stated-preference studies

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 247-264

  Boyle, Kevin J ^a   Özdemir, Semra ^b  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of North Carolina   (United States)

Author keywords

Attribute based valuation; Choice experiments; Convergent validity; Famland protection; Incentive compatibility; Monetary incentive; Non market valuation; Stated prederences; Status quo option

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION;

ATTRIBUTE-BASED; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONVERGENT VALIDITY; FAMLAND PROTECTION; INCENTIVE COMPATIBILITY; MONETARY INCENTIVE; NON-MARKET VALUATION; STATED PREDERENCES; STATUS QUO;

COMMERCE;

AGRICULTURAL LAND; ECONOMIC IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ESTIMATION METHOD; INCENTIVE; VALUATION; WELFARE ECONOMICS;

EID: 58549111577     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-008-9233-9     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. F Acito 1977 An investigation of some data collection issue in conjoint management J Mark Res 16 26 31
2. W Adamowicz P Boxall M Williams JJ Louviere 1998 Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation Am J Agric Econ 80 1 64 75 10.2307/3180269
3. SD Beasley WG Workman NA Williams 1986 Estimating amenity values of urban fringe farmland: a contingent valuation approach: note Growth change 17 4 70 78 10.1111/j.1468-2257.1986.tb00067.x
4. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge
5. JC Bergstrom BL Dillman JR Stoll 1985 Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land South J Agric Econ 17 1 139 150
6. P Boxall J Swait W Adamowicz M Williams J Louviere 1996 A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation Ecol Econ 18 3 243 253 10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0
7. KJ Boyle FR Johnson DW McCollum 1997 Anchoring and adjustment in single-bounded, contingent-valuation questions Am J Agric Econ 79 5 1495 1500 10.2307/1244370
8. WS Breffle RD Rowe 2002 Comparing choice questions formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs Land Econ 78 298 314 10.2307/3147275
9. Breffle WS, Morey ER, Rowe RD, Waldman DM (2006) Combining stated-choice questions with observed behavior to value NRDA compensable damages: Green Bay, PCBs and fish consumption advisories. In: Kahn J, Alberini A (eds) The handbook of contingent valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
10. LL Bumpass 1997 The measurement of public opinion on abortion: the effects of survey design Fam Plann Perspect 29 4 177 180 10.2307/2953382
11. F Carlsson P Martinsson 2001 Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments J Environ Econ Manage 41 2 179 192 10.1006/jeem.2000.1138
12. Carmines EG, Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (CA)
13. RT Carson T Groves 2000 Incentive and informational properties of preference questions Environ Resour Econ 37 181 210 10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5
14. R Dhar 1997 Consumer preference for a no-choice option J Consum Res 24 September 215 231 10.1086/209506
15. JR DeShazo G Fermo 2002 Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency J Environ Econ Manage 44 123 143 10.1006/jeem.2001.1199
16. Farrar S, Ryan M (1999) Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ Lett 8:75-79. doi :10.1002/(SICI)1099- 1050(199902)8:1<75::AID-HEC400>3.0.CO;2-5
17. JM Feldman JG Lynch Jr 1988 Self generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, and behavior J Appl Psychol 73 3 421 435 10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421
18. Foster V, Mourato S (1999) Elicitation format and part-whole bias: do contingent valuation and contingent ranking give the same result? CSERGE working paper GEC 99-17. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College, London
19. Greene WH (2000) Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey
20. R Haaijer W Kamakura M Wedel 2001 The no-choice alternative in conjoint choice experiments Int J Market Res 43 1 93 106
21. JM Halstead 1984 Measuring the nonmarket value of Massachusetts agricultural land: a case study J Northeastern Agric Econ Counc 13 1 12 19
22. B Halvorsen 1996 Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys Environ Resour Econ 8 4 485 499 10.1007/BF00357416
23. J Hausman D McFadden 1984 Specification tests for the multinomial logit model Econometrica 52 1219 1240 10.2307/1910997
24. Holmes T, Adamowicz V (2003) Attribute-based methods. In: Champ P, Boyle KJ, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands
25. T Holmes K Boyle 2005 Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions Land Econ 81 114 126
26. J Huber K Zwerina 1996 The importance of utility balance and efficient choice designs J Mark Res 33 307 317 10.2307/3152127
27. E Irwin 2002 The effects of open space on residential property values Land Econ 78 4 465 480 10.2307/3146847
28. FR Johnson MR Banzhaf WH Desvousges 2000 Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format stated-preference approach Health Econ 9 295 317
29. T Kjaer M Bech D Gyrd-Hansen K Hart-Hansen 2006 Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? Health Econ 15 11 1217 1228
30. Krieger DJ (1999) Saving open spaces: public support for farmland protection. WP99-1, Center for Agriculture and the Environment, DeKalb, IL
31. JA Krosnick DF Alwin 1987 An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement Public Opin Q 51 2 201 219 10.1086/269029
32. E Lancsar J Louviere 2006 "Deleting irrational" responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ 15 797 811 10.1002/hec.1104
33. JA List CA Gallet 2001 What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values Environ Resour Econ 20 3 241 254 10.1023/A:1012791822804
34. J Little R Berrens 2004 Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis Econ Bull 14 6 1 13
35. AJ Lloyd 2002 Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate Health Econ 11 1 10 10.1002/hec.667
36. JJ Louviere 1991 Experimental choice analysis: introduction and overview J Bus Res 23 291 297 10.1016/0148-2963(91)90015-P
37. JJ Louviere M Fox W Moore 1993 Cross-task validity comparisons of stated preference choice models Mark Lett 4 3 205 213 10.1007/BF00999227
38. JJ Louviere RJ Meyer DS Bunch 1999 Combining sources of preference data for modeling complex decision processes Mark Lett 10 3 187 204 10.1023/A:1008050215270
39. Louviere JJ, Hensher D, Swait J (2001) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications in marketing, transportation and environmental valuation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
40. JJ Louviere D Street R Carson 2002 Dissecting the random component of utility Mark Lett 13 3 177 193 10.1023/A:1020258402210
41. JL Lusk FB Norwood 2005 Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates Am J Agric Econ 87 3 771 785 10.1111/j.1467-8276. 2005.00761.x
42. WA Magat WK Viscusi J Huber 1988 Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation J Environ Econ Manage 15 395 411 10.1016/0095-0696(88)90034-4
43. McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York
44. JJ Murphy PG Allen TH Stevens D Weatherhead 2005 A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation Environ Resour Econ 30 3 313 325 10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z
45. Paterson RW, Boyle KJ, Ahearn M, Alberini A, Bergstrom J, Libby L et al (2001) Improved information in support of a national strategy for open land policies: summary of focus group findings summer, 2000, Staff Paper, The University of Maine
46. Paterson RW, Boyle KJ, Ahearn M, Alberini A, Bergstrom J, Libby L et al (2005) Public preferences for farmland attributes in conservation easement programs. In: Goetz SJ, Shortle JS, Bergstrom JC (eds) Chapter 12 in land use problems and conflicts: causes, consequences and solutions. Routledge, Taylor Francis Group, London
47. RS Rosenberger RG Walsh 1997 Nonmarket value of western valley ranchland using contingent valuation J Agric Resour Econ 22 2 296 309
48. K Saelensminde 2002 The impact of choice inconsistency in stated choice studies Environ Resour Econ 23 403 420 10.1023/A:1021358826808
49. A Scott S Vick 1999 Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship Scott J Polit Econ 46 111 134 10.1111/1467-9485.00124
50. CJ Simmons BA Bickart JG Lynch Jr 1993 Capturing and creating public opinion in survey research J Consum Res 20 2 316 329 10.1086/209352
51. TH Stevens R Belkner D Dennis D Kittredge C Willis 2000 Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management Ecol Econ 32 63 74 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00071-3
52. JM Stewart E O'Shea C Donaldson P Shackley 2002 Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care J Health Econ 21 4 585 599 10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00003-6
53. J Swait W Adamowicz 2001 The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching J Consum Res 28 1 135 148 10.1086/321952
54. J Swait J Louviere 1993 The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models J Mark Res 30 305 313 10.2307/3172883
55. DA Taebel 1975 The effect of ballot position on electoral success Am J Pol Sci 19 3 519 526 10.2307/2110542
56. Takatsuka Y, Kahn J, Stewart S (2002) Choice model and contingent valuation estimates of the value of ecosystem attributes, paper presented at 72nd annual meeting of the southern economic association, New Orleans, LA, November
57. R Tourangeau KA Rasinski 1988 Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement Psychol Bull 103 3 299 314 10.1037/0033-2909. 103.3.299