Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation

A review of methods and applications

  • Review Article
  • Area 7 · Risk Assessment, Risk Management, Health
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background, Aim and Scope

Conjoint analysis and the related choice-modelling methods have been used for many years in marketing research to evaluate consumer behaviour and preferences for different kinds of product attributes. Recently, the number of applications in environmental science and management has started to grow. Conjoint analysis is found in many different forms, and the environmental studies evaluated in this review display the same range of methods as in other fields. The key characteristic of all these methods is that trade-offs are evaluated by jointly considering a number of important attributes.

Main Features

This paper is a review of the literature on environmental applications of conjoint analysis and assesses in which environmental area conjoint analysis has been most successful. The method and the design of the studies are reviewed as well.

Results

A total of 84 studies were found, dealing with environmental issues that were evaluated by conjoint analysis. The studies concern agriculture, ecosystem management, energy, environmental evaluation, forestry, land management, pollution, products, recreation, environmental risk analysis and waste management.

Discussion

Choice experiments seem to have a comparatively stronger position in environmental studies than elsewhere. Most of the environmental applications are related to natural resource management. This is somewhat surprising, but a number of reports have appeared also on product evaluation, which could be a key application area in the future.

Conclusions

Compared to marketing and transportation, the number of environmental conjoint studies is rather small but increasing, and the method has proven to work effectively in eliciting preferences on environmental issues.

In environmental issues, experimenters often use choice experiments, especially concerning ecosystem management and environmental evaluations. When it comes to evaluating preferences concerning agriculture, forestry, energy and products, a more traditional approach of conjoint analysis is favoured.

Recommendations and Perspectives

Two new areas of application are identified in this review — environmental communication and expert elicitation. Conjoint analysis can thus be developed into a useful instrument for environmental risk analysis and communication, both of which are necessary for an efficient approach to risk governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ACA:

Adaptive Conjoint Analysis

WTP:

Willingness To Pay

WTA:

Willingness To Accept

ECPB:

Environmental Conscious Purchase Behaviour

OLS:

Ordinary Least Squares

ANOVA:

Analysis Of VAriance

MONANOVA:

MONotone ANalysis Of VAriance

PREFMAP:

PREFerence MAPping

LINMAP:

LINear programming technique for Multidimensional Analysis of Preference

References

  • Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Boxall PC, Louviere JJ, Williams M (1997): Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 32, 65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1998): Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use value: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz WL, Louviere JJ, Williams M (1994): Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manag 26, 271–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini A, Chiabai A, Muehlenbachs L (2005): Using expert judgment to assess adaptive capacity to climate change: evidence from a conjoint choice survey. 106.2005, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberini A, Tonin S, Turvani M, Chiabai A (2007): Paying for permanence: public preferences for contaminated site cleanup. J Risk Uncertainty 34, 155–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alriksson S, Öberg T (2008): Conjoint Analysis: A useful tool for assessing preferences for environmental issues (Letter to the Editor). Env Sci Pollut Res 15(2) 119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N (2002): Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energ Policy 30, 107–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N, Barberán R, Lázaro A (2007): Choice modeling at the ‘market stall’: individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 60, 743–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson RC, Hansen EN (2004): The impact of environmental certification on preferences for wood furniture: a conjoint analysis approach. Forest Prod J 54, 42–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Auty S (1995): Using conjoint analysis in industrial marketing. Ind Market Manag 24, 191–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baarsma BE (2003): The valuation of the IJmeer nature reserve using conjoint analysis. Env Resourc Econ 25, 343–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002): Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 458 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J (1981): Assessing the potential demand for electrical cars. J Econometrics 17, 1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belcher KW, Germann AE, Schmutz JK (2007): Beef with environmental and quality attributes: Preferences of environmental group and general population consumers in Saskatchewan, Canada. Agr Hum Values 24, 333–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva M, McFadden D, Train K, Walker J, Bhat C, Bierlaire M, Bolduc D, Boersch-Supan A, Brownstone D, Bunch DS, Daly A, de Palma A, Gopinath d, Karlstorm A, Munizaga MA (2002): Hybrid choice models: progress and challenges. Marketing Letters 13, 163–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman S (1985): Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J, Blamey R (2001): The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar

  • Bennett J, Rolfe J, Morrison M (2001): Remnant Vegetation and wetlands protection: non-market valuation. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds), The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, pp 93–114

  • Berger IE, Kanetkar V (1995): Increasing environmental sensitivity via workplace experiences. J Public Policy Mark 14, 205–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright RE (2006): Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energ Policy 34, 1004–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigsby H, Ozanne LK (2002): The purchase decision: consumers and environmentally certified wood products. Forest Prod J 52, 100–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006a): Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecol Econ 60, 145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006b): Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an applicati. Sci Total Environ 365, 105–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey R, Bennett J, Louviere J, Morrison M, Rolfe J (1999): The use of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies, University of NSW, Camberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Blamey R, Bennett J (2001): Yea-saying and validation of a choice model of green product choice. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds), The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, pp 178–201

  • Blamey R, Bennett J, Louviere Jordan J, Morrison M (2001): Green product choice. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds), The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, pp 115–132

  • Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Louviere JJ (2002): Attribute causality in environmental choice modelling. Env Resourc Econ 23, 167–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomkvist O, Ekdahl F, Gustafsson A (2003): Non-geometric Plackett-Burman Designs in conjoint analysis. In: Gustafsson A, Herrman A, Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement, methods and application. Springer, pp 187–208

  • Bonnieux F, Rainelli P, Vermersch D (1998): Estimating the supply of environmental benefits by agriculture: a french case study. Environ Resourc Econ 11, 135–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J (1996): A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 18, 243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brey R, Riera P, Mogas J (2007): Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecol Econ 64, 305–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown TC, Nannini D, Gorter R, Bell P, Peterson GL (2002): Judged Seriousness of Environmental Losses: Reliability and Cause of Loss. Ecol Econ 42, 479–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownstone D, Bunch DS, Train K (2000): Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transport Res B-Meth 34, 315–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brönn PS, Olson EL (1999): Mapping the strategic thinking of public relations managers in a crisis situation: an illustrative example using conjoint analysis. Public Relat Rev 25, 351–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock CH, Elston DA, Chalmers NA (1998): An application of economic choice experiments to a traditional land use-deer hunting and landscape change in the Scottish Highlands. J Environ Manage 52, 335–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunch DS, Bradley M, Golog TF, Kitamura R (1993): Demand for cleanfuel vehicles in California: a discrete choice stated preference pilot project. Transport Res A-Pol 27, 237–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan A, Grijalva T, Jackson-Smith D (2007): Using choice question formats to determine compensable values: the case of a landfill-siting process. Ecol Econ 60, 834–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Liljenstolpe C (2003): Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecol Econ 47, 95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin P, Wittink DR (1982): Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. J Marketing 46, 44–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay S, Braden JB, Patunru A (2005): Benefits of hazardous waste cleanup: new evidence from survey-and market based property value approaches. Contemporary Economic Policy 23, 357–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2001): Design for the environment: a quality-based model for green product development. Manage Sci 47, 250–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2006): Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 58, 850–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2007): Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. Am J Agr Econ 89, 135–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Concu GB (2007): Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach. Aust J Agr Resour Ec 51, 175–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagsvik JK, Wennemo T, Wetterwald DG, Aaberge R (2002): Potential demand for alternative fuel vehicles. Transport Res B-Meth 36, 361–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damigos D (2006): An overview of environmental valuation methods for the mining industry. J Clean Prod 14, 234–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels RF, Hensher DA (2000): Valuation of environmental impacts of transport projects. J Transp Econ Policy 34, 189–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Darmon RY, Rouziès D (1999): Internal validity of conjoint analysis under alternative measurement procedures. J Bus Res 46

  • de Dios Ortúzar J, Rodrígues G (2002): Valuing reductions in environmental pollution in a residential location context. Transport Res D-Tr E 7, 407–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earnhart D (2001): Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Econ 77, 12–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewing G, Sarigöllü E (2000): Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel vehicles: A discrete choice experiment. J Public Policy Mark 19, 106–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farber S, Griner B (2000a): Using conjoint analysis to value ecosystem change. Environ Sci Technol 34, 1407–1412

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farber S, Griner B (2000b): Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis. Ecol Econ 34, 63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster V, Mourato S (2000): Valuing the multiple impacts of pesticide use in the UK: a contingent ranking approach. J Agr Econ 51, 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster V, Mourato S (2003): Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope. Env Resourc Econ 24, 141–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman MA (2003): The measurement of environmental and resource values. RFF Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gan C, Luzar EJ (1993): A conjoint analysis of waterfoul hunting in Louisiana. J Agr Appl Econ 25, 36–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Garber-Yonts B, Kerkvliet J, Johnson R (2004): Public values for biodiversity conservation policies in the Oregon coast range. Forest Sci 50, 589–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod GD, Willis KG (1997): The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: a contingent ranking study. Ecol Econ 21, 45–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod GD, Willis KG (1998a): Using contingent ranking to estimate the loss of amenity value for inland waterways from public utility service structure. Environ Resourc Econ 12, 241–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod GD, Willis KG (1998b): Estimating lost amenity due to landfill waste disposal. Resour Conserv Recy 22, 83–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goossen M, Langers F (2000): Assessing quality of rural areas in the Netherlands: finding the most important indicators for recreation. Landscape Urban Plan 46, 241–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon J, Chapman R, Blamey R (2001): Assessing the options for the Canberra water supply: an application of choice modelling. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds), The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, pp 73–92

  • Green PE, Rao VR (1971): Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgemental data. J Marketing Res 8, 355–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green PE, Srinivasan V (1978): Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook. J Consum Res 5, 103–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green PE (1984): Hybrid models for conjoint analysis: an expository review. J Marketing Res 21, 155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990): Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Marketing 54, 3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y (2001): Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31, S56–S73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006): Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. In: Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (eds), The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press, pp. 609–627

  • Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (2003a): Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement, methods and applications. Springer, pp 5–46

  • Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (2003b): Conjoint Measurement — Methods and Applications. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer R, Wedel M (2003): Conjoint choice experiments: general characteristics and alternative model specifications. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement, methods and applications. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 371–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998a): Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agr Econ 49, 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz WL (1998b): Using choice experiments to value the environment — design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environ Resourc Econ 11, 413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001): Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surveys 15

  • Hanley N, Adamowicz WL, Wright RE (2005): Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test. Resource Energy Econ 27, 227–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright RE, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006): Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J Environ Manage 78, 183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Colombo S, Mason P, Johns H (2007): The reform of support mechanisms for upland farming: paying for public goods in the severely disadvantaged areas of England. J Agr Econ 58, 433–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser JR, Rao VR (2003): Conjoint analysis, related modelling, and applications. In: Wind Y (ed), Marketing Research and Modelling: Progress and Prospects: A Tribute to Paul E. Green. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, USA, pp 364

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaefele MA, Loomis JB (2001): Improving statistical efficiency and testing robustness of conjoint marginal valations. Am J Agr Econ 83, 1321–1327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hearne RR, Salinas ZM (2002): The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica. J Environ Manage 65, 153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Louviere JJ, Swait J (1999): Combining sources of preference data. J Econometrics 89, 197–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Shore N, Train K (2005): Households willingness to pay for water service attributes. Environ Resourc Econ 32, 509–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann A, Schmidt-Gallas D, Huber F (2003): Adaptive conjoint analysis: understanding the methodology and assessing reliability and validity. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement — methods and applications. Springer Verlag, pp 305–329

  • Hong S-k, Kim J-h, Kim S-i (2003): Implications of potential green tourism development. Ann Tourism Res 30, 323–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope RA (2006): Evaluating water policy scenarios against the priorities of the rural poor. World Dev 34, 167–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne P, Petajisto L (2003): Preferences for alternative moose management regimes among Finnish landowners: A choice experiment approach. Land Econ 79, 472–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005): Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecol Manag 207, 189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne P (2006): Forest owners acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation — a choice experiment based approach. Silva Fenn 40, 169–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Huu Tuan T, Navrud S (2007): Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates. Environ Resourc Econ 38, 51–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2004): Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J LCA 9, 196–205

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Y, Swallow SK, McGonagle MP (2005): Context-sensitive benefit transfer using stated preference choice models: specification and convergent validity for policy analysis. Environ Resourc Econ 31, 477–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin J, Wang Z, Ran S (2006a): Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecol Econ 57, 430–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin J, Wang Z, Ran S (2006b): Estimating the public preferences for solid waste management programmes using choice experiments in Macao. Waste Manage Res 24, 301–309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson FR, Desvousges WH (1997): Estimating Stated Preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manag 34, 79–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallas Z, Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M (2007): Are citizens willing to pay for agricultural multifunctionality? Agr Econ 36, 405–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly J, Haider W, Williams PW, Englund K (2007): Stated preferences of tourists for eco-efficient destination planning options. Tourism Manage 28, 377–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lareau TJ, Rae DA (1989): Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: an application of contingent ranking technique. Southern Econ J 55, 728–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence KS (2005): Assessing the value of recreational sea angling in South West England. Fisheries Manag Ecol 12, 369–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitham S, McQuaid RW, Nelson JD (2000): The influence of transport on industrial location choice: a stated preference experiment. Transport Res A-Pol 34, 515–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine J, Frank LD (2007): Transportation and land-use preferences and residents’ neighbourhood choices: the sufficiency of compact development in the Atlanta region. Transportation 34, 255–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li C-Z, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Tahvonen O (2004): Using choice experiments to value the Natura 2000 conservation programs in Finland. Environ Resourc Econ 29, 361–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindhjem H (2007): 20 years of stated preference valuation of nontimber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis. J Forest Econ 12, 251–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood M (1999): Preference structures, property rights, and paired comparisons. Environ Resourc Econ 13, 107–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000): Stated choice methods, analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Woodworth G (1983): Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Marketing Res 20, 350–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ (1988): Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences. J Transp Econ Policy 22, 93–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ (1992): Experimental choice analysis: introduction and overview. J Bus Res 24, 89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000): Stated choice methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (2003): Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory preference elicitation methods. In: Gustafsson A, Herrman A, Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement — methods and applications. Springer Verlag, pp 331–370

  • Luce RD, Tukey JW (1964): Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement. J Math Psychol 1, 1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce RD (1996): The ongoing dialog between empirical science and measurement theory. J Math Psychol 40, 78–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk J, Nilsson T, Foster K (2007): Public preferences and private choices: Effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environ Resour Econ 36, 499–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machado FS, Mourato S (2002): Evaluating the multiple benefits of marine water quality improvements: how important are health risk reductions? J Environ Manage 65, 239–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie J (1993): A comparison of contingent preference models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 593–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madureira L, Rambonilaza T, Karpinski I (2007): Review of methods and evidence for economic valuation of agricultural non-commodity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broader decisional contexts. Agr Ecosyst Environ 120, 5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough D (2002): A user’s guide to conjoint analysis. Market Res 14, 18–23

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1974): Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zambreka P (ed), Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, pp 105–142

  • Mehta R, Moore WL, Pavia TM (1992): An examination of the use of unacceptable levels in conjoint analysis. J Consum Res 19, 470–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milon JW, Scrogin D (2006): Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 56, 162–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogas J, Riera P, Bennett J (2006): A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions. J Forest Econ 12, 5–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore WL, Louviere JJ, Verma R (1999): Using Conjoint Analysis to Help Design Product Platforms. J Prod Innovat Manag 16, 27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore WL (2004): A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint analysis models. Int J Res Mark 21, 299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, Louviere JJ (2002): Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. American journal of Agricultural Economics 84, 161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton KM, Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC (1995): Economic effects of environmental quality change on recreational hunting in northwestern Saskatchewan: a contingent behaviour analysis. Can J Forest Res 25, 912–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulye R (1998): An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP and two variants of conjoint analysis. J Behav Decis Making 11, 263–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakatani J, Aramaki T, Hanaki K (2007): Applying choice experiments to valuing the different types of environmental issues in Japan. J Environ Manage 84, 362–376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Opaluch J, Swallow S, Weaver T, Wessells C, Wichelns D (1993): Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: including public preferences in current siting mechanisms. J Environ Econ Manag 24, 41–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppewal H, Louviere Jordan J, Timmermans HJP (2000): Modifying conjoint methods to model managers reactions to business environmental trends: an application to modeling retailer reactions to sales trends. J Bus Res 50, 245–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Othman J, Bennett J, Blamey R (2004): Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modelling experience in Malaysia. Environ Devel Econ 9, 803–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C, Wiersma G (2003): Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. J Econ Psycol 24, 49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powe NA, Garrod GD, McMahon PL (2005): Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis. Ecol Econ 52, 513–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Probert EJ, Dawson GF, Cockrill A (2005): Evaluating preferences within the composting industry in Wales using a conjoint analysis approach. Conserv Recycling 45, 128–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ready R, Fisher A, Guignet D, Stedman R, Wang J (2006): A pilot test of a new stated preference valuation method: continuous attributebased stated choice. Ecol Econ 52, 247–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reutterer T, Kotzab HW (2000): The use of conjoint-analysis for measuring preferences in supply chain design. Ind Market Manag 29, 27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JJ (2002): Environmental value transfer: an application for the southern east Queensland waterways. Water Sci Technol 45, 91–100

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roe B, Boyle KJ, Reisl MF (1996): Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manag 31, 145–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe B, Teisl MF, Levy A, Russell M (2001): US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Energ Policy 29, 917–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2000): Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol Econ 35, 289–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford MB, Knetsch JL, Brown TC (1998): Assessing Environmental Losses: Judgments of Importance and Damage Schedules. Harvard Environ Law 22, 51–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M, Bate C, Eastmond C, Ludbrook A (2001a): Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Quality Health Care 10, i55–i60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen E, Russell E, Napper M, Robb C (2001b): Eliciting public preferences for health care: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technocol Assess 5, 1–186

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saelensminde K (1999): Stated choice valuation of urban traffic air pollution and noise. Transport Res D-Tr E 4, 13–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saelensminde K (2006): Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies. Ecol Econ 59, 331–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sammer K, Wüstenhagen R (2006): The influence of eco-labelling on consumer behaviour — results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Bus Strat Env 15, 185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasao T (2004): An estimation of the social costs of landfill siting using a choice experiment. Waste Manage 24, 753–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler H, Hensel-Börner S (2003): A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustafsson A, Herrman A, Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement — methods and applications. Springer Verlag, pp 147–159

  • Sayadis, Gonzales Roa C, Calatrava Requena J (2005): Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain. Ecol Econ 55, 539–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl A, Manthey L, Helm R, Steiner M (2005): Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: an empirical comparison. Eur J Oper Res 164, 760–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder HW, Louviere JJ (1999): Stated choice models for predicting the impact of user fees at public recreation sites. J Leisure Res 31, 300–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR (2004): Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida. Ecol Econ 2004, 349–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spash CL (2007): Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol Econ 63, 690–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2006): Why are energy policies acceptable and effective? Environment and Behaviour 38, 92–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens TH, Belkner R, Dennis D (2000): Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecol Econ 32, 63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straughan R, Roberts J (1999): Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behaviour in the new millennium. J Consum Market 16, 558–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stärk KDC, Wingstrand A, Dahl J, Mögelmose V, Lo Fo Wong DMA (2002): Differences and similarities among experts opinions on Salmonella enterica dynamics in swine pre-harvest. Prev Vet Med 53, 7–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turpie J, Joubert A (2001): Estimating potential impacts of a change in river quality on the tourism value of Kruger National Park: an application of travel cost, contingent and conjoint valuation methods. Water SA 27, 387–398

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A (1967): A general study of polynomial conjoint measurement. J Math Psychol 4, 1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urama KC, Hodge ID (2006): Are stated preferences convergent with revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria. Ecol Econ 59, 24–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen HAB, Snoo GRd, Wossink GAA (1996): Farmers’ Perception of Unsprayed Crop Edges in the Netherlands. J Environ Manage 47, 241–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker J, Ben-Akiva M (2002): Generalized random utility model. Math Soc Sci 43, 303–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardman M, Bristow AL (2004): Traffic related noise and air quality valuations: evidence from stated preference residential choice models. Transport Res D-Tr E 9, 1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wattage P, Mardle S, Pascoe S (2005): Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives using choice experiments. Ecol Econ 55, 85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veisten K (2007): Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation. J Forest Econ 13, 29–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatachalam L (2004): The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Asses 24, 89–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernstedt K, Meyer PB, Alberini A (2006): Attracting private investment to contaminated properties: the value of public interventions. J Policy Anal Manag 25, 347–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winslott Hiselius L (2005): Using Choice Experiments to Assess People’s Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials. Risk Anal 25, 1199–1214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink DR, Cattin P (1989): Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. J Marketing 53, 91–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink DR, Vriens M, Burhenne W (1994): Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: results and critical reflections. Int J Res Mark 11, 41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu ZM, Cheng GD, Bennett J, Zhang ZQ, Long AH, Kunio H (2007): Choice modeling and its application to managing the Ejina Region, China. J Arid Environ 69, 331–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai G, Fukuzono T, Ikeda S (2007): Multi-attribute evaluation of flood management in Japan: a choice experiment approach. Water Environ J 21, 265–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinkhan CF, Holmes TP, Mercer ED (1997): Conjoint analysis: a preference-based approach for the accounting of multiple benefits in Southern forest management. South J Appl For 21, 180–186

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pure and Applied Natural Sciences, University of Kalmar, 391 82, Kalmar, Sweden

    Stina Alriksson & Tomas Öberg

Authors
  1. Stina Alriksson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomas Öberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stina Alriksson.

Additional information

ESS-Submission Editor: Dr. Susanne Heise (s.heise@tu-harburg.de)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alriksson, S., Öberg, T. Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15, 244–257 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2008.02.479

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2008.02.479

Keywords

Search

Navigation