Repeated questioning in choice experiments: are we improving statistical efficiency or getting respondents confused?

Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 216-233

  Alberini, Anna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

complexity; conjoint choice experiments; stated preferences; statistical efficiency; utility variance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942800566     PISSN: 21606544     EISSN: 21606552     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2012.698516     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Alberini, A., Repeated questioning in choice experiments: are we improving statistical efficiency or getting respondents confused?. Workshop on recent trends in non market valuation, International Center for Climate Governance. November3–4.
2. Alberini, A., 2012. Willingness to pay to reduce risks in Canada: three policies Report submitted to Health Canada
3. Alberini, A., Chiabai, A., and Muehlenbachs, L., 2006. Using expert judgment to assess adaptive capacity to climate change: evidence from a conjoint choice survey. Global environmental change, 16 (2): 123–144.
4. Alberini, A., Longo, A., and Veronesi, M., 2007. “ Basic statistical models for conjoint choice experiments ”. In Valuing environmental amenities using choice experiments: a common sense guide to theory and practice, Edited by: Kanninen, B., 203–227. Darmstadt, Germany: Springer.
5. Alberini, A., and Šcasný, M., Mortality risk reductions or life expectancy gains? A three country comparison of approaches to mortality benefits estimation. 18th annual EAERE conference. June2011.
6. Alberini, A., and Šcasný, M., 2011b. Context and the VSL: evidence from a stated preference study in Italy and the Czech Republic. Environmental and resource economics, 49 (4): 511–538.
7. Bateman, I.J., 2008. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of environmental economics and management, 55 (2): 127–141.
8. Chattopadhyay, S., Braden, J.B., and Patunru, A., 2005. Benefits of hazardous waste cleanup: new evidence from survey- and market-based property value approaches. Contemporary economic policy, 23 (3): 357–375.
9. Day, B., 2012. Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. Journal of environmental economics and management, 63 (1): 73–91.
10. Dellaert, B.G.C., Brazell, J.D., and Louviere, J.J., 1999. The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency. Marketing letters, 10: 139–147.
11. DeShazo, J.R., and Fermo, G., 2002. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity in choice consistency. Journal of environmental economics and management, 44: 123–143.
12. Diamond, P.A., and Hausman, J.A., 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of economic perspectives, 8 (4): 45–64.
13. Earnhart, D.H., 2001. Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land economics, 77: 12–29.
14. Garrod, G., and Willis, K.G., 1998. Using contingent ranking to estimate the loss of amenity value for inland waterways from public utility service structure. Environmental resource economics, 12: 241–247.
15. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., and Koop, G., 2002. Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: climbing in Scotland. Environmental and resource economics, 22 (3): 449–466.
16. Hensher, D.A., and Rose, J.M., 2007. Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: a case study. Transportation research part A, 41 (5): 428–433.
17. Holmes, T.D., and Boyle, K.J., 2005. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land economics, 81: 114–126.
18. Ladenburg, J., and Olsen, S.B., 2008. Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. Journal of environmental economics and management, 56: 275–285.
19. Louviere, J.J., and Islam, T., 2008. A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. Journal of business research, 61: 903–911.
20. Louviere, J.J., Modeling the choice of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extrapreference information. CenSoCWorking Paper No. 04-005. Available from: http://www.business.uts.edu.au/censoc/papers/index.html [Accessed 7 Jun 2012]
21. Scarpa, R., and Rose, J.M., 2008. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics, 52 (3): 253–282.
22. Scarpa, R., and Thiene, M., 2005. Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land economics, 81 (3): 426–444.
23. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., and Train, K., 2008. Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American journal of agricultural economics, 90 (4): 994–1010.
24. Scarpa, R., Willis, K.G., and Acutt, M., 2007. Valuing externalities from water supply: status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. Journal of environmental economics and management, 50 (4): 449–466.
25. Scarpa, R., 2011. Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in Alpine grazing commons. American journal of agricultural economics, 93 (3): 813–828.
26. Spash, C.L., 2007. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological economics, 63: 690–699.
27. Swait, J., 2007. “ Advanced choice models ”. In Valuing environmental amenities using choice experiments: a common sense guide to theory and practice, Edited by: Kanninen, B., 229–293. Darmstadt, Germany: Springer.
28. Swait, J., and Adamowicz, W., 2001. Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86 (2): 141–167.
29. Train, K.E., 2003. Discrete choice methods with simulations, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Viscusi, W.K., 1993. The value of risks to life and health. Journal of economic literature, 31 (4): 1912–1946.