A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 539-559

  Carson, Richard T ^a,b   Louviere, Jordan J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Discrete choice modeling; Survey questions

Indexed keywords

SURVEYS; TERMINOLOGY;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DATA COLLECTION; DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS; RESEARCH RESULTS; STATED PREFERENCE SURVEYS; STATED PREFERENCES; STATED-PREFERENCE STUDIES; STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES;

DATA ACQUISITION;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DATA ACQUISITION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; NOMENCLATURE; RESEARCH WORK; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURVEY METHOD;

EID: 79960112287     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9450-x     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Adamowicz V, Boxall P, Louviere JJ, Williams M (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1): 64-75.
2. 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(1): 40-62.
3. Alberini A, Kanninen B, Carson RT (1997) Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Econ 73(3): 309-324.
4. American Association for Public Opinion Research (2009) Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 6th edn. American Association for Public Opinion Research, Deerfield, IL.
5. Anderson NI (1970) Functional measurements and psychophysical judgment. Psychol Rev 73(3): 153-170.
6. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601-4614.
7. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Dupont D, Georgiou S (2009) Procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method. Rev Econ Stat 91(4): 807-820.
8. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Loomes G, Sugden R (2007) Can ranking techniques elicit robust values?. J Risk Uncertain 34(1): 49-66.
9. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol Econ 12(2): 161-191.
10. Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav Sci 9(3): 226-232.
11. Bennett, J, Blamey, R (eds) (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton.
12. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M (1997) Standard gamble, time trade-off, and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ 16(2): 155-175.
13. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1991) Referendum contingent valuation estimates: sensitivity to assignment of offered values. J Am Stat Assoc 86(416): 910-918.
14. Carson RT (1985) Three essays on contingent valuation. Ph. D. dissertation. University of California Berkeley.
15. Carson RT (1991) Constructed market. In: Braden J, Kolstad C (eds) Measuring the demand for environmental commodities. NorthHolland, Amsterdam.
16. Carson RT (2010) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, Northhampton.
17. Carson RT, Conaway MB, Hanemann WM, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Presser S (2004) Valuing oil spill prevention: a case study of California's central coast. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston.
18. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19(2): 173-210.
19. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1): 181-210.
20. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Stanley Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK (1998) Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA Panel's no-vote recommendation. Rev Econ Stat 80(2): 335-338.
21. Carson RT, Louviere JJ, Philens D (2010) Design of discrete choice experiments: a discussion of issues that matter in future applied research. J Choice Model.
22. Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1993) The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resour Res 29(7): 2445-2454.
23. Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1995) Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 28(2): 155-1731.
24. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Ruud P (1990) Valuing air quality improvements: simulating a hedonic pricing equation in the context of a contingent valuation scenario. In: Mathai CV (ed) Visibility and fine particulates. Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh.
25. Champ RA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, Daniel W, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33(2): 151-162.
26. Chapman RG, Staelin R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J Market Res 19(3): 288-301.
27. Cooper JC, Hanemann WM, Signorello G (2002) One-and-one-half bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev Econ Stat 84(4): 742-750.
28. Crouch GI, Oppewal H, Huybers T, Dolnicar S, Louviere JJ, Devinney T (2007) Discretionary expenditures and tourism consumption: insights from a choice experiment. J Travel Res 45(3): 247-258.
29. Cummings R, Taylor L (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649-665.
30. Davis RK (1963) The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the maine woods. Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University.
31. Desvouges WH, Smith VK, Fisher A (1987) Option price estimates for water quality improvements: a contingent valuation study for the Monongahela River. J Environ Econ Manag 14(3): 248-267.
32. Echessah PN, Swallow BM, Kamara DW, Curry JJ (1997) Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya. World Dev 25(2): 239-252.
33. Englin J, Cameron TA (2002) Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data. Environ Resour Econ 7(2): 133-147.
34. 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(3): 342-363.
35. Flynn T, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coates J (2007) Best-worse scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it?. J Health Econ 26(1): 171-189.
36. Forsgren E (1992) Predation risks affects mate choice in Gobiid fish. Am Nat 140(6): 1041-1049.
37. Gafni A (1994) The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res 29(2): 207-224.
38. Green P, Rao V (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J Mark Res 8(3): 355-363.
39. Graham DA (1981) Cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty. Am Econ Rev 71(4): 715-725.
40. Hammack J, Brown GM (1974) Waterfowl and wetlands: toward a bioeconomic analysis. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
41. Hanley N, MacMillian D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49(1): 1-15.
42. Hanemann WM, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73(4): 1255-1263.
43. Hellmuth T, Walther H, Zajonc A, Schleich W (1987) Delayed choice experiments in quantum interference. Phys Rev A 35(6): 2532-2541.
44. Holbrook MB, Moore WL, Winer RS (1982) Constructing joint spaces from pick-any data: a new tool for consumer analysis. J consumer Res 9(1): 99-105.
45. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263-292.
46. Krantz DH, Tversky A (1971) Conjoint measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology. Psychol Rev 78(2): 151-169.
47. Lancaster K (1971) Consumer demand a new approach. Columbia University Press, New York.
48. Li CZ, Mattsson L (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 28(2): 256-269.
49. Louviere JJ (1988) Analyzing decision making: metric conjoint analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
50. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York.
51. Louviere JJ, Flynn T, Carson RT (2010) Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model 3(3): 57-72.
52. Marley AAJ, Flynn T, Louviere JJ (2008) Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol 52(5): 281-296.
53. Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ (2005) Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 49(6): 464-480.
54. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York.
55. McFadden D, Train KE, Tye WB (1977) An application of diagnostic tests for the independence of irrelevant alternatives property of the multionomial logit model. Transp Res Rec 637: 39-45.
56. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1981) An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvement. Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
57. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
58. Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC (1980) Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res 28(1): 206-224.
59. Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C (1974) Bidding games for the valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. J Environ Econ Manag 1(2): 132-149.
60. Ready R, Fisher A, Guignet D, Stedman R, Wang J (2006) A pilot test of a new stated preference valuation method: Continuous attribute-based stated choice. Ecol Econ 59(3): 247-255.
61. Ready RC, Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J Environ Econ Manag 29(2): 181-196.
62. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ (2010) Stated choice experimental design theory: the who, the what and the why. Paper presented at the Sawtooth conference on the use of conjoint analysis in health care, Newport Beach, CA.
63. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Hensher DA, Collins AT (2008) Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp Res B Methodol 42(4): 395-406.
64. Rosen S (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit prices: product differentiation. J Political Econ 82(1): 34-55.
65. Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Breffle WS (1996) A test for payment card biases. J Environ Econ Manag 31(2): 178-185.
66. Samples KC, Hollyer JR (1989) Volunteer time as a compensation vehicle in contingent valuation studies of endangered species. In: W-133 benefits and costs in natural resources planning, Western Regional Research Publication Interim Report.
67. Shyamsundar P, Kramer RA (1996) Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. J Environ Econ Manag 31(2): 129-144.
68. Smith VK (2004) Fifty Years of contingent valuation. International yearbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenhen.
69. Strauss RP, Hughes GD (1976) A new approach to the demand for public goods. J Public Econ 6(3): 191-204.
70. Street D, Burgess L (2007) The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Wiley, New York.
71. Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 5(4): 1-30.
72. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL (1972) A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 7(2): 118-133. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice.
73. Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D (1990) The causes of preference reversals. Am Econ Rev 80(1): 204-217.
74. US Environmental Protection Agency (1994) President Clinton's clean water initiative: analysis of benefits and costs. EPA 800-R-94-002 (NTIS Document No. PB94-154101). Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
75. Varian H (1992) Microeconomic analysis. 3rd edn. Norton, New York.
76. Wang H (1997) Treatment of "Don't Know" responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manag 32(2): 219-232.
77. Welsh M, Poe G (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparison to multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ 36(2): 170-185.
78. Whittington D, Smith VK, Okorafor A, Okore A, Liu JL, McPail A (1992) Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. J Environ Econ Manag 22(3): 205-222.
79. Wittink DR, Cattin P (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. J Mark Res 53(3): 91-96.