A stated preference analysis comparing the Analytical Hierarchy Process versus Choice Experiments

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 181-192

  Kallas, Zein ^a   Lambarraa, Fatima ^b   Gil, José Maria ^a  

^a Edifici ESAB   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Analytical Hierarchy Process; Choice Experiments; Consumer preferences

Indexed keywords

ORYCTOLAGUS CUNICULUS;

EID: 78649477238     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Swait J. Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods 1998, Adavanis, Edmonton.
2. Aguarón J., Moreno-Jiménez J.M. Stability intervals in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 2000, 125:114-133.
3. Alfens F. Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: Application of a mixed logit model. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2004, 31(1):19-37.
4. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S.R. Discrete choice analysis: Theory and applications to travel demand 1985, MIT Press, Cambridge.
5. Bennett J., Blamey R. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation 2001, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
6. Bryson N. A goal programming method for generating priority vectors. Journal of the Operational Research Society 1995, 46:641-648.
7. Burton M., Pearse D. Consumer attitudes towards genetic modification, functional foods, and microorganisms: A choice modelling experiment for beer. Agbioforum 2002, 5(2):51-58.
8. Burton M., Rigby D., Young T., James S. Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2001, 28(4):479-498.
9. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist J.C. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: Mobil abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2007, 34(3):321-344.
10. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters 2005, 89:147-152.
11. Charzan K. Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters 1994, 5(2):165-172.
12. Colombo S., Calatrava-Requena J., Hanley N. Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecological Economics 2006, 58:850-861.
13. Colombo S., Angus A., Morris J., Parsons D.J., Brawn M., Stacey K., et al. A comparison of citizen and "expert" preferences using an attribute-based approach to choice. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:2834-2841.
14. Duke J., Ilvent T., Hyde R. Public support for land preservation. Measuring relative preferences in Delaware. Frec Research Report. 2002, Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware, USA.
15. Easley R., Valacich J., Venkataramanan M. Capturing group preferences in a multicriteria decision. European Journal of Operational Research 2000, 125:73-83.
16. Forman E., Peniwati K. Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 1998, 108:165-169.
17. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., et al. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 49(1):1-15.
18. Hausman J., McFadden D. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 1984, 52:1219-1240.
19. Helm R., Scholl A., Manthey L., Steiner M. Measuring customer preferences in new product development: Comparing compositional and decompositional methods. International Journal of Product Development 2004, 1:12-29.
20. Hensher D., Rose J., Greene W. Applied choice analysis: A primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
21. Hoffman L.C., Nkhabutlane P., Schutte D.W., Volsoo C. Factors affecting the purchasing of rabbit meat: A study of ethnic groups in the Western Cape. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences 2004, 32:26-35.
22. Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Retrieved June 28, 2010, from http://neuroeconomics-summerschool.stanford.edu/pdf/KAHNEMAN1.pdf.
23. Kallas Z., Gómez-Limón J.A., Barreiro J. Decomposing the value of agricultural multifunctionality: Combining contingent valuation and the analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 58(2):218-241.
24. Krinsky I., Robb L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1986, 68(4):715-719.
25. Laininen P., Hämäläinen R. Analysing AHP-matrices by regression. European Journal of Operational Research 2003, 148:514-524.
26. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74:132-157.
27. Louviere J. Analyzing individual decision-making: Metric conjoint analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, N 07-067 1988, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
28. Louviere J., Hensher D., Swait J. Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications in marketing, transportation and environmental valuation 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. Luce R. Individual choice behaviour: A theoretical analysis 1959, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
30. Malvinas F., Mangkoesubroto K., Suryadi K., Yudhistira T. Development of customer decision model in selecting product concept based on conjoint-analysis-like AHP (CALAHP), Communication presented at the International symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process 2005, Honolulu, Hawaii.
31. MARM, (2007). Ministry of Environment and Rural Affairs and Marine. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www.mapa.es/es/estadistica/infoestad.html.
32. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
33. Meißner, M., & Decker, R. (2009). An empirical comparison of CBC and AHP for measuring consumer preferences. International Symposium of Analytical Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh.
34. Meißner M., Scholz S.W., Decker R. AHP versus ACA - An empirical comparison. In Data analyis, Machine learning and applications 2008, Business Administration and Marketing, Bielefeld University, Germany, (pp. 447-454).
35. Moran D., McVittie A., Allcroft D., Elston D. Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:42-53.
36. Mulye R. An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP and two variants of conjoint analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1998, 11:263-280.
37. Parra C., Calatrava J., De Haro T. Evaluación comparativa multifuncional de sistemas agrarios mediante AHP: Aplicación al olivar ecológico, integrado y convencional de Andalucía. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales 2005, 5(9):27-55.
38. Perini A., Ricca F., Susi A. Tool-supported requirements prioritization: Comparing the AHP and CBrank methods. Information and Software Technology. Information and Software Technology 2009, 51:1021-1032.
39. Ramanathan R., Ganesh L. Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process deriving member's weightages. European Journal of Operational Research 1994, 79(1):249-265.
40. Ryan M., Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Economics 2009, 18(4):389-401.
41. Saaty T. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1977, 15(6):234-281.
42. Saaty T. The analytic hierarchy process 1980, McGraw-hill, New York.
43. Saaty T. Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary?. European Journal of Operational Research 2003, 145(1):85-91.
44. Scholl A., Manthey L., Helm R., Steiner M. Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison. European Journal of Operational Research 2005, 164:760-777.
45. Scholz S.W., Decker R. Measuring the impact of wood species on consumer preferences for wooden furniture by means of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Forest Products Journal 2007, 57(3):23-28.
46. Scholz, S. W., Meißner, M., & Wagner, R. (2005). Robust preference measurement a simulation study of erroneous and ambiguous judgement's impact on AHP and conjoint analysis. In H. Hans-Dietrich, H. Kopfer, & J. Schönberger (Eds.), Operations research proceedings. Bielefeld University, Germany: Business Administration and Marketing.
47. Sedef A., Bülent M., Canan A. Consumer willingness to pay for organic products in urban Turkey. Contributed Paper prepared for presentation at the 105th EAAE Seminar 'International Marketing and International Trade of Quality Food Products 2007, Bologna, Italy.
48. Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review 1927, 34:273-286.
49. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business 1986, 59:251-278.