A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 554-571

  McNair, Ben J ^a   Bennett, Jeff ^a   Hensher, David A ^b  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Incentive compatibility; Order effects; Undergrounding; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; INCENTIVE COMPATIBILITY; ORDER EFFECTS; UNDERGROUNDING; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTS; SURVEYS;

DECISION THEORY;

DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; INCENTIVE; NEOCLASSICAL THEORY; TELECOMMUNICATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 79957606989     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Alfnes, F., Steine, G., 2005. None-of-these bias in hypothetical choice experiments. Discussion paper DP-06/05. Department of Economics and Resources Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas.
2. Ariely D., Loewenstein D., Prelec D. 'Coherent arbitrariness': stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2003, 118:73-105.
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58:4601-4614.
4. Bateman I.J., Burgess D., Hutchinson W.G., Matthews D.I. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2008, 55:127-141.
5. Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Dupont, D., Louviere, J.J., Morimoto, S., Scarpa, R., Wang P., 2008b. Choice set awareness and ordering effects in discrete choice experiments. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 08-01.
6. Beenstock M., Goldin E., Haitovsky Y. Response bias in conjoint analysis of power outages. Energy Economics 1998, 20:135-156.
7. Bennett J., Blamey R. The Choice Modeling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
8. Boyle K., Morrison M., Taylor L. Why value estimates generated using choice modelling exceed contingent valuation: further experimental evidence. Paper presented at Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference 2004.
9. Boyle K.J., Bishop R.C., Welsh M.P. Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Economics 1985, 61:188-194.
10. Bradley M., Daly A. Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data. Transportation 1994, 21:167-184.
11. Braga J., Starmer C. Preference anomolies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 32:55-89.
12. Cameron T.A., Poe G.L., Ethier R.G., Schulze W.D. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 44:391-425.
13. Cameron T.A., Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 27:218-234.
14. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2001, 41:179-192.
15. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Does it matter when a power outage occurs? A choice experiment study on the WTP to avoid power outages. Energy Economics 2008, 30:1232-1245.
16. Carson K.S., Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G. Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 57:219-225.
17. Carson R.T., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37:181-210.
18. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., List J., 2006. Probabilistic influence and supplemental benefits: a field test of the two key assumptions behind using stated preferences. Unpublished manuscript.
19. Carson R.T., Groves T., Machina M.J. Stated preference questions: context and optimal response. Paper Presented at National Science Foundation Preference Elicitation Symposium 1997.
20. Caussade S., Ortuzar J.d.D., Rizzi L.I., Hensher D.A. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research Part B 2005, 39:621-640.
21. Colwell P. Power lines and land value. The Journal of Real Estate Research 1990, 5:117-127.
22. Commonwealth Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts, 1998. Putting cables underground. A Report for the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, November.
23. Day B., Pinto J.L. Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2010, 59:271-285.
24. Des Rosiers F. Power lines, visual encumbrance and house values: a microspatial approach to impact measurement. The Journal of Real Estate Research 2002, 23:275.
25. DeShazo J.R. Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 43:360-385.
26. Farquharson R. Theory of Voting 1969, Yale University Press, New Haven.
27. Fosgerau M., Nielsen S.F. Deconvoluting preferences and errors: a semi-nonparametric model for binomial panel data. Paper presented at Econometric Society European Meeting 2006.
28. Green J., Laffont J.J. Incentives in Public Decision Making 1979, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
29. Green J.R., Laffont J.J. A sampling approach to the free rider problem. Essays in Public Economics 1978, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. A. Sandmo (Ed.).
30. Gregory R., von Winterfeldt D. The effects of electromagnetic fields from transmission lines on public fears and property values. Journal of Environmental Management 1996, 48:201-214.
31. Hamilton S., Schwann G. Do high voltage electric transmission lines affect property values?. Land Economics 1995, 71:436-444.
32. Hanemann M.W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66:332-341.
33. Hanemann W.M., Loomis J., Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1991, 73:1255-1263.
34. Hensher D.A. Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2010, 44(6):735-752.
35. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H. Valuation of travel time savings in WTP and preference space in the presence of taste and scale heterogeneity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, in press.
36. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
37. Hensher D.A., Truong T.P. Valuation of travel time savings: a direct experimental approach. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 1985, 19:237-261.
38. Herriges J.A., Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, 30:112-131.
39. Holmes T., Boyle K.J. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics 2005, 81:114-126.
40. Hurwicz L. On informationally decentralized systems. Decision and Organisation 1972, North-Holland, Amsterdam. C.B. McGuire, R. Radner (Eds.).
41. Ignelzi, P., Priestley, T., 1991. A statistical analysis of transmission line impacts in six neighbourhoods. A Report for Pacific Consulting Services, February.
42. Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, 2002. Electricity undergrounding in New South Wales. A Report for the New South Wales Minister for Energy, May.
43. InfraSource Technology, 2007. Undergrounding assessment phase 1 final report. A Report for Florida Electric Utilities, February.
44. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-291.
45. Kinnard W., Dickey S. A primer on proximity impact research: residential property values near high-voltage transmission lines. Real Estate Issues 1995, 20:23-29.
46. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event. Journal of Consumer Research 1983, 10:348-361.
47. Lusk J., Schroeder T. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2004, 86:467-482.
48. Masiero, L., Hensher, D.A., 2010. Shift of reference point and implications on behavioral reaction to gains and losses. Quaderno N. 10-05.
49. McConnell K.E. Consumer surplus from discrete choice models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 29:263-270.
50. McFadden D. Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. Journal of Business 1980, 53:13-29.
51. McFadden D., Leonard G. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment 1995, North-Holland, Amsterdam. J.A. Hausman (Ed.).
52. McNair B.J., Abelson P. Estimating the value of undergrounding electricity and telecommunications networks. The Australian Economic Review 2010, 43:376-388.
53. McNair, B.J., Hensher, D.A., Bennett, J., 2010. Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach. Occasional Paper #16, Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University.
54. Mirrlees J. An exploration in the theory of optimal income taxation. Review of Economic Studies 1971, 38:175-208.
55. NERA Economic Consulting and ACNielsen, 2003. Willingness to pay research study. A Report for ACTEW Corporation and ActewAGL, September.
56. Plott C.R. Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior 1996, Macmillan, London. K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perleman, C. Schmidt (Eds.).
57. Racevskis L., Lupi F. Incentive compatibility in an attribute-based referendum model. Paper Presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting 2008.
58. Rose J.M., Hess S., Bliemer M.C.J., Daly A. The impact of varying the number of repeated choice observations on the mixed multinomial logit model. Paper Presented at European Transport Conference 2009.
59. Samuelson P.A. The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics 1954, 36:387-389.
60. Scarpa R., Rose J. 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 2008, 52:253-282.
61. Scheufele G., Bennett J. Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments. Paper Presented at 54th Annual Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference 2010.
62. Scheufele G., Bennett J. Ordering effects and response strategies in discrete choice experiments. Paper Presented at World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists 2010.
63. Seller C., Stoll J.R., Chavas J.P. Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: a comparison of nonmarket techniques. Land Economics 1985, 61.
64. Sims S., Dent P. High-voltage overhead power lines and property values: a residential study in the UK. Urban Studies 2005, 42:665-694.
65. Small K.A., Rosen H.S. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 1981, 49:105-130.