Tough and Easy Choices: Testing the Influence of Utility Difference on Stated Certainty-in-Choice in Choice Experiments

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 491-510

  Olsen, Søren Bøye ^a   Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark ^b   Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl ^b   Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Environmental valuation; Learning effect; Respondent uncertainty; Stated preferences; Utility balance

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION; LEARNING EFFECTS; RESPONDENT UNCERTAINTY; STATED PREFERENCES; UTILITY BALANCE;

ECONOMICS;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LEARNING; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 79960112286     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9443-9     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Alberini A, Boyle K, Welsh M (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 45: 40-62.
2. Bateman I, Burgess D, Hutchinson WG, Matthews DI (2008) Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manag 55: 127-141.
3. Berrens RP, Jenkins-Smith H, Bohara A, Silva CL (2006) Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 44: 144-168.
4. Braga J, Starmer C (2005) Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environ Res Econ 32: 55-89.
5. Brouwer R, Dekker T, Rolfe J, Windle J (2010) Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environ Res Econ 46: 93-109.
6. Brown CT, Kingsley D, Peterson GL, Flores NE, Clarke A, Birjulin A (2008) Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement. J Pub Econ 92: 1595-1606.
7. Bush G, Colombo S, Hanley N (2009) Should all choices count? Using the cut-offs approach to edit responses in a choice experiment. Environ Res Econ 44(3): 397-414.
8. Campbell D (2008) Identification and analysis of discontinuous preferences in discrete choice experiments. Paper presented at EAERE 16th annual conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 25-28 2008, 14 pp.
9. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag 41: 179-192.
10. Champ A, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33: 151-162.
11. Domencich T, McFadden D (1975) Urban travel demand: a behavioural analysis. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
12. Ferrini S, Scarpa R (2007) Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manag 53: 342-363.
13. Flachaire E, Hollard G (2007) Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Res Energy Econ 29: 183-194.
14. Greene WH, Hensher DA (2007) Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 43: 610-623.
15. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agr Econ 66: 332-341.
16. Hanley N, Shogren JF (2005) Is cost-benefit analysis anomaly-proof?. Environ Res Econ 32: 13-24.
17. Hensher DA (2008) Joint estimation of process and outcome in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. J Transp Econ Pol 42: 32-297.
18. Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice Designs. J Market Res 33: 307-317.
19. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2010) Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecol Econ 69: 532-1544.
20. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Boiesen JH, Anthon S, Tranberg J (2006) Værdisætning af syv mulige nationalparker i Danmark [Valuation of seven potential national parks in Denmark]. Workingpaper 28, Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, pp 63.
21. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N (2008) What's in a Name? The use of quantitative measures vs. 'iconised' species when valuing biodiversity. Environ Res Econ 39: 249-263.
22. Johansson-Stenman O, Svedsäter H (2008) Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: the importance of cognitive consistency. Top Econ Anal Pol 8: 1-8.
23. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Nancarrow BE (2006) The role of uncertainty in the relationship between fairness evaluations and willingness to pay. Ecol Econ 56: 104-124.
24. Kamenica E (2008) Contextual Inference in Markets: On Informational Content of Product Lines. Am Econ Rev 98(5): 2127-2149.
25. Kuhfeld W (2004) Marketing research methods in SAS, experimental design, choice, conjoint and graphical techniques. SAS Institute Inc, NC, USA.
26. Ladenburg J, Olsen SB (2008) Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manag 56: 275-285.
27. Li C, Mattsson L. (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 28: 256-269.
28. List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?. Quart J Econ 118: 41-71.
29. List JA, Sinha P, Taylor MH (2006) Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: evidence from field experiments. Adv Econ Anal Pol 6: 1-37.
30. Loomis J, Ekstrand E (1998) Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl. Ecol Econ 27: 29-41.
31. Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods. Analysis and Applications University Press, Cambridge.
32. Luchini S, Watson V (2008) Does respondent uncertainty explain framing effects in double bounded contingent valuation? GREQAM, Working Paper no. 2008-6.
33. Lundhede TH, Olsen SB, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2009) Handling respondent uncertainty in choice experiments: evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modelling of uncertainty. J Choice Model 2(2): 118-147.
34. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press Inc, New York, pp 105-142.
35. McKelvey M, Zavoina R (1975) A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J Math Sociol 4: 103-120.
36. Morrison M, Brown TC (2009) Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Res Econ 44(3): 307-326.
37. Olsen S (2009) Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environ Res Econ 44(4): 591-610.
38. Olsen S, Ladenburg J, Petersen ML, Lopdrup U, Hansen AS, Dubgaard A (2005) Motorways versus Nature-a welfare economic valuation of impacts, Report from FOI and IMV, Copenhagen.
39. Puckett SM, Hensher DA (2008) The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders. Trans Res Part E 44: 379-395.
40. Ready S, Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J Environ Econ Manag 29: 181-196.
41. Samnaliev M, Stevens TH, More T (2006) A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 57: 507-519.
42. Scarpa R, Ruto ESK, Kristjanson P, Radeny M, Drucher AG, Rege JEO (2003) Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates. Ecol Econ 45: 409-426.
43. Scarpa R, Ferrini S, Willis K (2005) Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. The economics of non-market goods and resources, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 247-273.
44. Scarpa R, Willis K, Acutt M (2007) Valuing externalities from water supply: status quo, choice complexity, and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. J Environ Plann Manag 50: 449-466.
45. Scarpa R, Thiene M, Marangon F (2008) Using flexible taste distributions to value collective reputation for environmentally friendly production methods. Can J Agr Econ 56: 145-162.
46. Schwarz N, Sudman S (1996) Answering questions, methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
47. Sun L, van Kooten GC (2009) Comparing fuzzy and probabilistic approaches to preference uncertainty in non-market valuation. Environ Res Econ 42: 471-489.
48. Sælensminde K (2001) Inconsistent choices in stated choice data; use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases. Transportation 28: 269-296.
49. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
50. Wang H (1997) Treatment of "Don't-Know" responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manag 32: 219-232.
51. Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manag 36: 170-185.