Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests

Journal of Socio-Economics

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 198-206

  Rulleau, Bénédicte ^a,b   Dachary Bernard, Jeanne ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiment; Forest recreation; Individual preferences; Rationality tests

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855796779     PISSN: 10535357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2011.08.030     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Adamowicz V., Louviere J., Swait J. Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods 1998, Submitted to NOAA, US Department of Commerce, Advanis, Edmonton.
2. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preferences methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 263:271-292.
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation 1993, Submitted to NOAA, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
4. Banzhaf M.R., Johnson F.R., Mathews K.E. Opt-out alternatives an Anglers' stated preferences. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, 157-177. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. J. Bennett, R. Blamey (Eds.).
5. Bech M., Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics 2005, 1410:1079-1083.
6. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. J. Bennett, R. Blamey (Eds.).
7. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L., Swait J., Williams M., Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 1996, 183:243-253.
8. Boxall P.C., Macnab B. Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest management: a choice experiment approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2000, 3012:1931-1941.
9. Cameron T.A. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1988, 153:355-379.
10. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 583:467-487.
11. Campbell D., Hutchinson G., Scarpa R. Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates 2006, Note di Lavoro 128.2006, FEEM, Venice.
12. Campbell D., Hutchinson G., Scarpa R. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 413:401-417.
13. Carlsson F., Kataria M., Lampi E. Ignoring attributes in choice experiments, School of Business 2008, Economics and Law Working Paper, Göteborg University.
14. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. How Much is Too Much. Environmental and Resource Economics 2008, 40(2):165-176.
15. Caussade S., de Dios Ortúzar J., Rizzi L.I., Hensher D.A. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiments estimates. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2005, 397:621-640.
16. Cavailhès J. Une méthode innovante à développer, des résultats encore fragiles. économie et Statistique 2005, 373:75-80.
17. Christie M., Hanley N., Hynes S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. Journal of Forest Economics 2007, 13(2-3):75-102.
18. Dachary-Bernard J. La méthode des choix multi-attributs appliquée aux monts d'arrée. Cahiers d'économie et sociologie rurales 2007, 84-85:133-166.
19. Donkers B., Melenberg B. Testing Predictive Performance of Binary Choice Models 2002, Working Paper, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
20. Foster V., Mourato S. Testing for consistency in contingent ranking experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 442:309-328.
21. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 2003, Prentice Hall, New York. 5th ed.
22. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. Journal of Economic Surveys 2001, 153:435-462.
23. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamowicz V. Using choice experiment to value the environment: design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 113-114:413-428.
24. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Koop G. Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: climbing in Scotland. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:449-466.
25. Hauser J.R., Shugan S.M. Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference. Operations Research 1980, 28:278-320.
26. Hensher D.A., Johnson L.W. Applied discrete-choice modelling 1981, Wiley, Hoboken (New-Jersey).
27. Hensher D., Rose J., Greene W. The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 2005, 323:203-222.
28. Hole A.R. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Economics 2007, 168:827-840.
29. Holmes T.P., Boyle K.J. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated preference valuation questions. Land Economics 2005, 811:114-126.
30. Horne P., Boxall P., Adamowicz W. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 2005, 2071-2072:189-199.
31. Kahneman D. New challenges to the rationality assumption. Choices, Values, and Frames 2000, 758-774. Cambridge University Press and the Russel Sage Foundation, New York. D. Kahneman, A. Tversky (Eds.).
32. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22:57-70.
33. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., Thaler R.H. The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias: anomalies. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1991, 5:193-206.
34. Kaplowitz M.D., Hoehn J.P. Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?. Ecological Economics 2001, 362:237-247.
35. Knetsch J.L. The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. The American Economic Review 1989, 79:1277-1284.
36. Knetsch J.L. Preferences and nonreversibility of indifference curves. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1992, 17:131-139.
37. Knetsch J.L. Valuing statistical lives: the choice of measure also matters. Journal of Consumer Policy 2004, 27:99-104.
38. Kuhfeld W.F. Experimental Design and Choice Modelling Macros 2005, SAS Technical Support Document.
39. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 1966, 742:132-157.
40. Lancaster K. Consumer Demand: A New Approach 1971, Columbia University Press, New York.
41. Lancsar E., Louviere J. Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Economics 2006, 158:797-811.
42. Louviere J. What if consumer experiments impact variances as well as means? Response variability as a behavioral phenomenon. The Journal of Consumer Research 2001, 28:506-511.
43. Manski C.F. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 1977, 8:229-254.
44. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
45. McIntosh E., Ryan M. Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002, 233:367-382.
46. Métayer S. Accueil du public en milieu naturel sur le littoral girondin: les plans plages. Cahiers Espaces 1999, 62:65-71.
47. Mueller S., Lockshin L. How important is wine packaging for consumers? On the reliability of measuring attribute importance with direct verbal versus indirect visual methods. Fourth International Wine Business Conference 2008.
48. Rulleau, B., 2008. Services récréatifs en milieu naturel littoral et évaluation économique multi-attributs de la demande. PhD dissertation, Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV, Bordeaux.
49. Ryan M., Bate A. Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care. Applied Economic Letters 2001, 81:59-63.
50. Ryan M., San Miguel F. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Economics 2002, 12:295-307.
51. Sælensminde K. Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies. Ecological Economics 2006, 593:331-340.
52. San Miguel F., Ryan M., Amaya-Amaya M. Irrational stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Economics 2004, 143:307-322.
53. Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002, 23(3):383-398.
54. Street D.J., Burgess L., Louviere L.L. Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2005, 22(4):459-470.
55. Swait J., Adamowicz W. The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. The Journal of Consumer Research 2001, 281:135-148.