Test-Retest Reliability of Choice Experiments in Environmental Valuation

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 389-407

  Liebe, Ulf ^a,b   Meyerhoff, Jürgen ^c   Hartje, Volkmar ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

^c TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Environmental valuation; Test retest reliability; Wind power

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; NEUROMUSCULAR REHABILITATION; RELIABILITY; STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS; SURVEYS; WIND POWER;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION; PARAMETRIC -ANALYSIS; PARAMETRIC MODELS; STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE; TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY ESTIMATES;

PARAMETER ESTIMATION;

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS; STOCHASTICITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; WIND POWER;

GERMANY;

EID: 84867854559     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-012-9567-1     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ary D, Jacobs LC, Sorensen C, Razavieh A (2009) Introduction to research in education, 8th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont.
2. Bierlaire M (2003) BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models, presented at the 3rd Swiss transportation research conference, Ascona.
3. Bliem M, Getzner M, Rodiga-Laßnig P (2012) Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. J Environ Manag 103: 65-73.
4. Bowker AH (1948) A test of symmetry in contingency tables. J Am Stat Assoc 43(244): 572-574.
5. Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Moon A (2009) Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 53(4): 503-519.
6. Breffle WS, Rowe RD (2002) Comparing choice question formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs. Land Econ 78: 298-314.
7. Brouwer R, Bateman IJ (2005) Temporal stability and transferability of willingness to pay for flood control, and wetland conservation. Water Resour Res 41(3): 1-6.
8. Bryan S, Gold L, Sheldon R, Buxton M (2000) Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. Health Econ 9(5): 385-395.
9. Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R (2008) Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 41(3): 401-417.
10. Carlsson F, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB (2012) The first time is the hardest: a test of ordering effects in choice experiments. J Choice Model (forthcoming), Gothenburg.
11. Christie M, Gibbons J (2011) The effect of individual 'ability to choose' (scale heterogeneity) on the valuation of environmental goods. Ecol Econ 70: 2250-2257.
12. DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effect of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44(1): 123-143.
13. 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.
14. Fiebig D, Keane M, Louviere J, Wasi N (2010) The generalized multinomial logit: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci 29(3): 393-421.
15. Guttman L (1945) A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika 10(4): 255-282.
16. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) The implications of willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32(3): 203-222.
17. Hensher DA, Jones S, Greene WH (2007) An error component logit analysis of corporate bankruptcy and insolvency risk in Autralia. Econ Rec 83(260): 86-103.
18. Hess S, Rose JM (2012) Can scale coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficient models? Transportation (online 1. April 2012).
19. Holmes T, Boyle KJ (2005) Learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Econ 81(1): 114-126.
20. Johnson FR, Kanninen B, Bingham M, Özdemir S (2007) Experimental design for stated choice. In: Kanninen B (ed) Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 159-202.
21. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Smith KM, Bishop BJ (2004) Random error in willingness to pay measurement: a multiple indicators, latent variable approach to the reliability of contingent values. J Econ Psychol 25(1): 41-59.
22. Kaplan RM, Saccuzzo DP (2008) Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. Wadsworth, Belmont.
23. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On Approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68(4): 715-719.
24. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics 33(1): 159-174.
25. Lusk JL, Norwood FB (2005) Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates. Am J Agric Econ 87(3): 771-785.
26. McConnell KE, Strand IE, Valdes S (1998) Testing temporal reliability and carry-over effect: the role of correlated responses in test-retest reliability studies. Environ Resour Econ 12(3): 357-374.
27. Meyerhoff J, Ohl C, Hartje V (2010) Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 38(1): 82-92.
28. Olsen SB (2009) Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environ Resour Econ 44(4): 591-610.
29. Olsen SB, Lundhede T, Jacobsen J, Thorsen B (2011) Tough and easy choices: testing the influence of utility difference on stated certainty-in-choice in choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 49(4): 491-510.
30. Poe GL, Giraud KL, Loomis JB (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agric Econ 87: 353-365.
31. Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, Smith P (2006) Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome-an application to social care for older people. J Health Econ 25(5): 927-944.
32. 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. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 247-273.
33. Scarpa R, Campbell D, Hutchinson WG (2007a) Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment. Land Econ 83(4): 617-634.
34. Scarpa R, Willis K, Acutt M (2007b) Valuing externalities from water supply: status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. J Environ Plan Manag 50(4): 449-466.
35. Skjoldborg US, Lauridsen J, Junker P (2009) Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health 12(1): 153-158.
36. Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res 30(3): 305-314.
37. Yu CH (2005) Test-retest reliability. In: Kempf-Leonard K (ed) Encyclopedia of social measurement, vol 3 P-A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 777-784.