Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments

Journal of Choice Modelling

Volumn 8, Issue , 2013, Pages 32-48

  Schaafsma, Marije ^a,b   Brouwer, Roy ^b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Choice set size; Environmental valuation; Water quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881181661     PISSN: 17555345     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.007     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., Williams, M., 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 (3), 271-292. (Pubitemid 2070720)
2. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., 2001. Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation. Working Papers in Economics. Department of Economics, Goteborg University.
3. Arentze, T., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H., DelMistro, R., 2003. Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 39 (3), 229-244. (Pubitemid 36302884)
4. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 (10), 4601-4614.
5. Banerjee, S., Murphy, J.H., 2005. The scope test revisited. Applied Economics Letters 12 (10), 613-617. (Pubitemid 41175071)
6. Bateman, I.J., Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Matthews, D.I., 2008. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55 (2), 127-141.
7. Bateman, I.J., Brouwer, R., Ferrini, S., Schaafsma, M., Barton, D.N., Dubgaard, A., Hasler, B., Hime, S., Liekens, I., Navrud, S., De Nocker, L., Sceponavicite, R., Semeniene, D., 2011. Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environment & Resource Economics 50 (3), 365-387.
8. Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., 1995. Discrete choice models with latent choice sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12 (1), 9-24.
9. Boyle, K.J., Bergstrom, J.C., 2001. Doubt, doubts, and doubters: the genesis of a new research agenda?. In: Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
10. Braga, J., Starmer, C., 2005. Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (1), 55-89. (Pubitemid 41215959)
11. Brouwer, R., 2008. The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (5), 597-614.
12. Brouwer, R., Dekker, T., Rolfe, J., Windle, J., 2010. Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 46 (1), 93-109.
13. Brown, T.C., Duffield, J.W., 1995. Testing part-whole valuation effects in contingent valuation of instream flow protection. Water Resources Research 31 (9), 2341-2351. (Pubitemid 26433088)
14. Brownstone, D., Train, K.E., 1998. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. Journal of Econometrics 89 (1-2), 109-129. (Pubitemid 128416647)
15. Brownstone, D., Bunch, D.S., Train, K., 2000. Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part B-Methodological 34 (5), 315-338. (Pubitemid 30334492)
16. Cai, B., Cameron, T.A., Gerdes, G.R., 2011. Distal order effects in stated preference surveys. Ecological Economics 70 (6), 1101-1108.
17. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Scarpa, R., 2008. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resources Economics 41 (3), 401-417.
18. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (1), 181-210. (Pubitemid 46797241)
19. Carlsson, F., Raun Morkbak, M., Boye Olsen, S., 2010. The First Time is the Hardest: A Test of Ordering Effects in Choice Experiments. Working Papers in Economics 470. Goteborg University, Department of Economics.
20. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., 1995. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (2), 155-173. (Pubitemid 26431296)
21. Caussade, S., de Dios Ortuzar, J., Rizzi, L.I., Hensher, D.A., 2005. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 39 (7), 621-640. (Pubitemid 40306746)
22. Colombo, S., Calatrava-Requena, J., Hanley, N., 2007. Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 (1), 135-151. (Pubitemid 46237936)
23. CPB, Centraal Planbureau, 2010. Centraal Economisch Plan 2010. Den Haag.
24. Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., McGuckin, T., 1994. Substitution effects in CVM values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76 (2), 205-214.
25. DeShazo, J.R., Fermo, G., 2002. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (1), 123-143. (Pubitemid 34973730)
26. DeShazo, J.R., Cameron, T.A., Saenz, M., 2009. The effect of consumers' real-world choice sets on inferences from stated preference surveys. Environmental and Resource Economics 42 (3), 319-343.
27. Ferrini, S., Fezzi, C., Day, B.H., Bateman, I.J., 2008. Valuing Spatially Dispersed Environmental Goods: A Joint Revealed and Spatial Preference Model to Consistently Separate Use and Non-Use Values. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 0803. CSERGE, University of East Anglia, UK.
28. Fotheringham, A.S., O'Kelly, M.E., 1989. Spatial Interaction Models: Formulations and Applications. Kluwer Academic Print, Dordrecht.
29. Haab, T.C., Hicks, R.L., 1997. Accounting for choice set endogeneity in random utility models of recreation demand. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34 (2), 127-147. (Pubitemid 28010319)
30. Hailu, A., Adamowicz, W.L., Boxall, P.C., 2000. Complements, substitutes, budget constraints and valuation. Environmental and Resource Management 16 (1), 51-68.
31. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., 2005a. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
32. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J., Greene, W.H., 2005b. The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32 (3), 203-222.
33. Hoehn, J.P., Loomis, J.B., 1993. Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental-programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25 (1), 56-75.
34. Holmes, T.P., Boyle, K.J., 2005. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics 81 (1), 114-126. (Pubitemid 40572244)
35. Jones, A., Wright, J., Bateman, I., Schaafsma, M., 2010. Estimating arrival numbers for informal recreation: a geographical approach and case study of British woodlands. Sustainability 2 (2), 684-701.
36. Kahneman, D., 2002. Maps of Bounded Rationality: A Perspective on Intuitive Judgment and Choice, Nobel Prize Lecture, December 8, 2002.
37. Kontoleon, A., Yabe, M., 2003. Assessing the impacts of alternative 'opt-out' formats in choice experiment studies: consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food. Journal of Agricultural Policy Research 5 (5), 1-43.
38. Kotchen, M.J., Reiling, S.D., 1999. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Another comment. Land Economics 75 (3), 478-482.
39. Krinsky, I., Robb, A.L., 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (4), 715-719.
40. Loomis, J., Gonzalez-Caban, A., Gregory, R., 1994. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Land Economics 70 (4), 499-506.
41. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.F., 2000. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
42. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., 2003. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
43. Manski, C.F., 1977. Structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8 (3), 229-254.
44. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M.D., Green, J.R., 1995. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, US.
45. Mazzotta, M.J., Opaluch, J.J., 1995. Decision-making when choices are complexa test of Heiners hypothesis. Land Economics 71 (4), 500-515. (Pubitemid 26434989)
46. Neill, H.R., 1995. The context for substitutes in CVM studies: some empirical observations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (3), 393-397.
47. Ohler, T., Le, A., Louviere, J., Swait, J., 2000. Attribute range effects in binary response tasks. Marketing Letters 11 (3), 249-260.
48. Parsons, G.R., Kealy, M.J., 1992. Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Economics 68 (1), 93-106.
49. Parsons, G.R., Hauber, A.B., 1998. Spatial boundaries and choice set definition in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Economics 74 (1), 32-48. (Pubitemid 28453715)
50. Pate, J., Loomis, J., 1997. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecological Economics 20 (3), 199-207. (Pubitemid 27152910)
51. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J., 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
52. Payne, J.W., Schkade, D.A., Desvousges, W.H., Aultman, C., 2000. Valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21 (1), 95-115.
53. Pellegrini, P.A., Fotheringham, A.S., Lin, G., 1997. An empirical evaluation of parameter sensitivity to choice set definition in shopping destination choice models. Papers in Regional Science 76 (2), 257-284. (Pubitemid 127648794)
54. Peters, T., Adamowicz, W.L., Boxall, P.C., 1995. Influence of choice set considerations in modeling the benefits from improved water quality. Water Resources Research 31 (7), 1781-1787. (Pubitemid 26430447)
55. Puckett, S.M., Hensher, D.A., 2008. The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders. Transportation Research Part ELogistics and Transportation Review 44 (3), 379-395.
56. Rolfe, J., Bennett, J., 2006. Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
57. Rose, J., Hensher, D.A., 2004. Modelling agent interdependency in group decision making. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review 40 (1), 63-79. (Pubitemid 37546395)
58. Ruimtemonitor, 2008. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. .
59. Savage, S.J., Waldman, D.M., 2008. Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes. Journal of Applied Econometrics 23 (3), 351-371.
60. 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, the Netherlands.
61. Schaafsma, M., 2010. Spatial Effects in Stated Preference Studies for Environmental Valuation (Ph.D. Thesis). VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
62. Scott, A., 2002. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 23, 383-398.
63. Sutherland, R.J., Walsh, R.G., 1985. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Economics 61 (3), 281-291. (Pubitemid 16295220)
64. Swait, J., Ben-Akiva, M.,1987. An analysis of the effects of captivity on travel time and cost elasticities. In: Annals of the 1985 International Conference on Travel Behavior. Noordwijk, Holland, pp. 113-128.
65. Swait, J., Louviere, J.J., 1993. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinational logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30 (3), 305-314.
66. Swait, J., Adamowicz, W.L., 1996. The effect of choice environment and task demands on consumer behavior: discriminating between contribution and confusion. Staff Paper Series 24091. . University of Alberta.
67. Swait, J., Adamowicz, W., 2001. The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1), 135-148.
68. Train, K., 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
69. Tversky, A., 1972. Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychological Review 79 (4), 281-299.
70. Whitehead, J.C., Blomquist, G.C., 1995. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates: comment? Land Economics 71 (4), 541-543.