Bayesian Conjoint Choice Designs for Measuring Willingness to Pay

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 129-149

  Vermeulen, Bart ^a   Goos, Peter ^b,f   Scarpa, Riccardo ^c,d   Vandebroek, Martina ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^e Katholieke Universiteit Leuven   (Belgium)

^f ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

c optimal design; Choice experiments; Conditional logit model; D optimal design; Robust design; Valuation

Indexed keywords

OPTIMAL SYSTEMS; RESOURCE VALUATION;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONDITIONAL LOGIT; D-OPTIMAL DESIGNS; OPTIMAL DESIGN; ROBUST DESIGNS;

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; DESIGN; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 78650177038     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9401-6     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80: 64-75.
2. Alberini A (1995) Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound, and bivariate models. J Environ Econ Manage 28: 287-306.
3. Atkinson AC, Donev AN (1992) Optimum experimental designs. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
4. Atkinson AC, Haines LM (1996) Designs for nonlinear and generalized linear models. In: Ghosh S, Rao CR (eds) Handbook of statistics 13: design and analysis of experiments. Elsevier, Leiden, pp 437-475.
5. Baiocchi G (2005) Monte carlo methods in environmental economics. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, chapter 16. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 317-340.
6. Banfi S, Farsi M, Filippini M, Jacob M (2008) Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Econ 30: 503-516.
7. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM (2010) Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations. Trans Res B 44: 720-734.
8. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resource Econ 23: 421-446.
9. Brau R, Cao D (2006) Uncovering the macrostructure of tourists' preferences. A choice experiment analysis of tourism demand of Sardinia. Note di Lavoro della Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
10. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal WTP differ in choice experiments?. J Environ Econ Manage 41: 179-192.
11. Carson R, Louviere J, Wasi N (2009) A cautionary note on designing discrete choice experiments: a comment on Lusk and Norwood's "Effect on experiment design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates". Am J Agric Econ 91: 1056-1063.
12. Ferrini S, Scarpa R (2007) Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manage 53: 342-363.
13. Hearne R, Salinas Z (2002) The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica. J Environ Manage 65: 153-163.
14. Hensher D, Sullivan C (2003) Willingness to pay for road curviness and road type. Trans Res D 8: 139-155.
15. Hole AR (2007) A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ 16: 827-840.
16. Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Market Res 33: 307-317.
17. Kanninen B (1995) Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 28: 114-125.
18. Kanninen BJ (1993) Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econ 69: 138-146.
19. Kessels R, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2006) A comparison of criteria to design efficient choice experiments. J Market Res 43: 409-419.
20. Kessels R, Jones B, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2008) Recommendations on the use of Bayesian optimal designs for choice experiments. Qual Reliab Eng Int 24: 737-744.
21. Kessels R, Jones B, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2009) An efficient algorithm for constructing Bayesian optimal choice designs. J Bus Econ Stat 27: 279-291.
22. Kimenju S, Morawetz U, Groote HD (2005) Comparing contingent valuation methods, choice experiments and experimental auctions in soliciting consumer preference for maize in Western Kenya: preliminary results, Paper prepared for presentation at the African Econometric Society 10th annual conference on econometric modeling in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.
23. Kuhfeld W, Tobias R, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental designs with marketing applications. J Market Res 31: 545-557.
24. Louviere J, Eagle T (2006) Confound it! That pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions! in Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; Sequem, Washington: Sawtooth Software, pp 211-228.
25. Louviere JJ, Street D, Carson R, Ainslie A, DeShazo J, Cameron T, Hensher D, Kohn R, Marley A (2002) Dissecting the random component of utility. Market Lett 13: 177-193.
26. Lusk JL, Norwood FB (2005) Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjont valuation estimates. Am J Agric Econ 87: 771-785.
27. Lusk JL, Norwood FB (2009) A cautionary note on the design of discrete choice experiments: reply. Am J Agric Econ 91: 1064-1066.
28. Lusk JL, Roosen J, Fox JA (2003) Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: a comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the U. K. and the U. S. Am J Agric Econ 85: 16-29.
29. Morey E, Rossmann K (2003) Using stated-preference questions to investigate variations in willingness to pay for preserving marble monuments: classic heterogeneity, random parameters, and mixture models. J Cultural Econ 27: 215-229.
30. Mtimet N, Albisu L (2006) Spanish wine consumer behavior: a choice experiment approach. Agribusiness 22: 343-362.
31. Nyquist H (1992) Optimal designs of discrete response experiments in contingent valuation studies. Rev Econ Stat 74: 559-563.
32. Ruto E, Garrod G, Scarpa R (2008) Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya. Agric Econ 38: 89-98.
33. Ryan M (2004) A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ 13: 291-296.
34. Sammer K, Wüstenhagen R (2006) The influence of eco-labelling on consumer behaviour-results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Bus Strategy Environ 15: 185-199.
35. Sándor Z, Wedel M (2001) Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. J Market Res 38: 430-444.
36. Scarpa R, Campbell D, Hutchinson WG (2007) Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment. Land Econ 83: 617-634.
37. Scarpa R, Rose J (2008) Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it what to report and why. Aust J Agric Resource Econ 52: 253-282.
38. Scarpa R, Thiene M, Train K (2008) Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Am J Agric Econ 90: 994-1010.
39. Sonnier G, Ainslie A, Otter T (2007) Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quant Market Econ 5(3): 313-331.
40. Swait J, Adamowicz W (2001) The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. J Consumer Res 28: 135-148.
41. Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Market Res 30: 305-314.
42. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
43. Train K, Weeks M (2005) Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Springer, Dordrecht.
44. Vermeulen B, Goos P, Scarpa R, Vandebroek M (2009) Design criteria to develop choice experiments to measure the WTP accurately. Research Report KBI_0816, Department of Decision Sciences and Information Management, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 29 pp.
45. Yu J, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2009a) Efficient conjoint choice designs in the presence of respondent heterogeneity. Market Sci 28: 122-135.
46. Yu J, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2009b) Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity. Research Report KBI_0902, Department of Decision Sciences and Information Management, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 15 pp.