Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
There has been an explosion of interest during the past two decades in a class of nonmarket stated-preference valuation methods known as choice experiments. The overall objective of a choice experiment is to estimate economic values for characteristics (or attributes) of an environmental good that is the subject of policy analysis, where the environmental good or service comprises several characteristics. Including price as a characteristic permits a multidimensional, preference-based valuation surface to be estimated for use in benefit-cost analysis or any other application of nonmarket valuation. The chapter begins with an overview of the historical antecedents contributing to the development of contemporary choice experiments, and then each of the steps required for conducting a choice experiment are described. This is followed by detailed information covering essential topics such as choosing and implementing experimental designs, interpreting standard and more advanced random utility models, and estimating measures of willingness-to-pay. Issues in implementing and interpreting random utility models are illustrated using a choice experiment application to a contemporary environmental problem. Overall, this chapter provides readers with practical guidance on how to design and analyze a choice experiment that provides credible value estimates to support decision-making.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Haener, M., Zhang, Y., Dosman, D. & Marois, J. (2004). An assessment of the impacts of forest management on aboriginal hunters: Evidence from stated and revealed preference data. Forest Science, 50, 139-152.
Adamowicz, W., Dupont, D., Krupnik, A. & Zhang, J. (2011). Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 61, 213-226.
Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. & Swait, J. (1998). Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. Final report to the Resource Valuation Branch, Damage Assessment Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Advantis.
Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., & Williams, M. (1994). Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271-292.
Adamowicz, W., Swait, J., Boxall, P., Louviere, J. & Williams, M. (1997). Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 65-84.
Alberini, A. & Ščasný, M. (2011). Context and the VSL: Evidence from a stated preference study in Italy and the Czech Republic. Environmental and Resources Economics, 49, 511-538.
Anderson, N. H. (1970). Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psychological Review, 77, 153-170.
Ben-Akiva, M. & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ben-Akiva, M. & Morikawa, T. (1990). Estimation of travel demand models from multiple data sources. In M. Koshi (Ed.), Transportation and traffic theory (pp. 461-476). New York: Elsevier.
Bhat, C. R. (1995). A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 29, 471-483.
Bhat, C. R. (1997). Covariance heterogeneity in nested logit models: Econometric structure and application to intercity travel. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 31, 11-21.
Bliemer, M. C. J. & Rose, J. M. (2011). Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: an empirical study in air travel choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45, 63-79.
Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G. C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N. & Freeman, P. (2008). Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment. Economic Journal, 118, 114-137.
Bockstael, N. E. & McConnell, K. E. (2007). Environmental and resource valuation with revealed preferences: A Theoretical Guide to Empirical Models. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Boxall, P. C. & Adamowicz, W. L. (2002). Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 421-446.
Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Williams, M. & Louviere, J. (1996). A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental values. Ecological Economics, 18, 243-253.
Boyd, J. & Krupnick, A. (2009). The definition and choice of environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 09-35. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Boyle, K. J., Johnson, F. R., McCollum, D. W., Desvousges, W. H., Dunford, R. W. & Hudson, S. P. (1996). Valuing public goods: Discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. Land Economics, 72, 381-396.
Bunch, D. S., Louviere, J. J. & Anderson, D. (1996). A comparison of experimental design strategies for multinomial logit models: The case of generic attributes. Working paper. University of California-Davis.
Cameron, T. A. (2010). Euthanizing the value of a statistical life. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4, 161-178.
Cameron, T. A. & DeShazo, J. R. (2013). Demand for health risk reductions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65, 87-109.
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P. & Liljenstolpe, C. (2003). Valuing wetland attributes: An application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47, 95-103.
Carlsson, F. & Martinsson, P. (2003). Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Economics, 12, 281-294.
Carson, R. T. & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 181-210.
Carson, R. T. & Groves, T. (2011). Incentive and information properties of preference questions: Commentary and extensions. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The International handbook of non-market environmental valuation (pp. 300-321). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Carson, R. T. & Louviere, J. J. (2011). A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49, 539-559.
Cattin, P. & Wittink, D. R. (1982). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey. Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 44-53.
Chen, H. Z. & Cosslett, S. R. (1998). Environmental quality preference and benefit estimation in multinomial probit models: A simulation approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 512-520.
Cooper, J. C. (1994). A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measures from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 70, 111-122.
Court, A. T. (1939). Hedonic price indexes with automotive examples. In The dynamics of automobile demand (pp. 99-117). New York: General Motors.
Cummings, R. & Taylor, L. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89, 649-665.
Day, B., Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Dupont, D., Louviere, J. J., Morimoto, S., Scarpa, R. & Wang, P. (2012). Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63, 73-91.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.
Ferrini, S. & Scarpa, R. (2007). Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53, 342-363.
Gan, C. E. C. & Luzar, E. J. (1993). A conjoint analysis of waterfowl hunting in Louisiana. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 25, 36-45.
Green, P. E. & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355-363.
Green, P. E. & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103-123.
Green, P. E. & Wind, Y. (1975). New way to measure consumers’ judgments. Harvard Business Review, 53, 107-117.
Greene, W. H. (2002). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Griliches, Z. (1971). Hedonic price indexes for automobiles: An econometric analysis of quality change. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), Price indexes and quality change: Studies in new methods of measurement (pp. 55-77). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gupta, S. & Chintagunta, P. K. (1994). On using demographic variables to determine segment membership in logit mixture models. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 128-136.
Hammond, K. R. (1955). Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. Psychological Review, 62, 255-262.
Hanemann, W. M. (1999). Welfare analysis with discrete choice models. In J. A. Herriges and C. L. Kling (Eds.), Valuing recreation and the environment: Revealed preference methods in theory and practice (pp. 33-64). Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.
Hausman, J. & McFadden, D. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica, 52, 1219-1240.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M. & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hess, S. & Rose, J. M. (2009). Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently? Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, 297-317.
Holmes, T. P. & Boyle, K. J. (2005). Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics, 81, 114-126.
Horne, P., Boxall, P. C. & Adamowicz, W. L. (2005). Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: A spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 189-199.
Huber, J. & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 307-317.
Itaoka, K., Saito, A., Krupnick, A., Adamowicz, W. & Taniguchi, T. (2006). The effect of risk characteristics on the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions from electric power generation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 33, 371-398.
Johnson, F. R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D. A., Bresnahan, B. W., Kanninen, B. & Bridges, J. F. P. (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health, 16, 3-13.
Kanninen, B. J. (2002). Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 214-227.
Kessels, R., Jones, B., Goos, P. & Vandebroek, M. (2008). Recommendations on the use of Bayesian optimal design strategies for choice experiments. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 24, 737-744.
Kim, H. N. (2014). The demonstration and capture of an ecosystem service value: Three different methodological approaches. Ph.D. thesis. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
Kling, C. L. (1991). Estimating the precision of welfare measures. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 21, 244-259.
Krinsky, I. & Robb, A. L. (1986). On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics, 68, 715-719.
Krupnick, A., Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Simon, N., O’Brien, B., Goeree, R. & Heintzelman, M. (2002). Age, health, and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: A contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24, 161-186.
Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132-157.
Lareau, T. J. & Rae, D. A. (1989). Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: An application of contingent ranking technique. Southern Economic Journal, 55, 728-742.
Lindhjem, H. & Navrud, S. (2011). Using Internet in stated preference surveys: A review and comparison of survey modes. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5, 309-351.
List, J. (2001). Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. American Economic Review, 91, 1498-1507.
Louviere, J. J. (1988a). Analyzing decision making: Metric conjoint analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-067. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Louviere, J. J. (1988b). Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 10, 93-119.
Louviere, J. J. & Hensher, D. A. (1983). Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 348-361.
Louviere, J. J. & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350-367.
Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N. & Carson, R. T. (2010). Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3 (3), 57-72.
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A. & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Louviere, J. J., Islam, T., Wasi, N., Street, D. & Burgess, L. (2008). Designing discrete choice experiments: Do optimal designs come at a price? Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 360-375.
Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.
Luce, R. D. & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1-27.
Mackenzie, J. (1993). A comparison of contingent preference models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 593-603.
Manski, C. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision, 8, 229-254.
Marschak, J. (1960). Binary choice constraints on random utility indicators. In K. Arrow (Ed.), Mathematical methods in the social sciences, 1959: Proceedings of the first Sanford Symposium (pp. 312-329). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mazzotta, M. J. & Opaluch, J. J. (1995). Decision making when choices are complex: A test of Heiner’s hypothesis. Land Economics, 71, 500-515.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105-142). New York: Academic Press.
Morey, E. R. (1999). Two RUMs uncloaked: Nested logit models of site choice and nested logit models of participation and site choice. In J. A. Herriges and C. L. Kling (Eds.), Valuing recreation and the environment: Revealed preference methods in theory and practice (pp. 65-120). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Naidoo, R. & Adamowicz, W. L. (2005). Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda. Environment and Development Economics, 10, 159-178.
Phaneuf, D. J., Taylor, L. O. & Braden, J. B. (2013). Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate preferences for residential amenities: A GMM approach. Land Economics, 89, 30-52.
Qin, P., Carlsson, F. & Xu, J. (2011). Forest tenure reform in China: A choice experiment on farmers’ property rights preferences. Land Economics, 87, 473-487.
Rae, D. A. (1983). The value to visitors of improving visibility at Mesa Verde and Great Smoky National Parks. In R. D. Rowe and L. G. Chestnut (Eds.), Managing air quality and scenic resources at national parks and wilderness areas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ready, R. C., Champ, P. A. & Lawton, J. L. (2010). Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Economics, 86, 363-381.
Roe, B., Boyle, K. J. & Teisl, M. F. (1996). Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31, 145-159.
Rolfe, J., Bennett, J. & Louviere, J. (2000). Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecological Economics, 35, 289-302.
Rose, J. M. & Bliemer, M. C. J. (2009). Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 29, 587-617.
Sándor, Z. & Wedel, M. (2001). Designing conjoint choice experiments using manager’s prior beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 430-444.
Scarpa, R. & 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, 253-282.
Scarpa, R. & 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, 426-444.
Ščasný, M. & Alberini, A. (2012). Valuation of mortality risk attributable to climate change: Investigating the effect of survey administration modes on a VSL. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 4760-4781.
Schultz, E.T., Johnston, R. J., Segerson, K. & Besedin, E. Y. (2012). Integrating ecology and economics for restoration: Using ecological indicators in valuation of ecosystem services. Restoration Ecology, 20, 304-310.
Shonkwiler, J. S. & Shaw, W. D. (1997). Shaken, not stirred: A finite mixture approach to analyzing income effects in random utility models. Paper presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association. August 2-4, Toronto, Ontario.
Small, K. A. & Rosen, H. S. (1981). Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica, 49, 105-130.
Smith, V. K. & Desvousges, W. H. (1986). Measuring water quality benefits. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Street, D. J. & Burgess, L. (2007). The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
Street, D. J., Burgess, L. & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 459-470.
Sur, D., Cook, J., Chatterjee, S., Deen, J. & Whittington, D. (2007). Increasing the transparency of stated choice studies for policy analysis: Designing experiments to produce raw response graphs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 189-199.
Swait, J. (1994). A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional, revealed preference choice data. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 1, 77-89.
Swait, J. & Adamowicz, W. (2001a). 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, 141-167.
Swait, J. & Adamowicz, W. (2001b). The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: A latent class model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 135-148.
Swait, J. & Louviere, J. (1993). The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 305-314.
Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychology Review, 34, 273-286.
Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.
Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Train, K. E. (1998). Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics, 74, 230-239.
von Haefen, R. H. & Phaneuf, D. J. (2008). Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: A combined revealed and stated preference. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56, 19-32.
Vossler, C. A. 2016. Chamberlin meets Ciriacy-Wantrup: Using insights from experimental economics to inform stated preference research. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64, 33-48.
Vossler, C. A., Doyon, M. & Rondeau, D. (2012). Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4 (4), 145-171.
Yellot, J. I., Jr. (1977). The relationship between Luce’s Choice Axiom, Thurstone’s Theory of Comparative Judgment, and the double exponential distribution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 109-144.
Zhang, J. & Adamowicz, W. L. (2011). Unravelling the choice format effect: A context-dependent random utility model. Land Economics, 87, 730-743.
- Choice Experiments
Thomas P. Holmes
Wiktor L. Adamowicz
- Springer Netherlands
- Chapter 5
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Best Practices zu agiler Qualität