Water valuation and the application of Declared Preferences methods: Contingent Valuation vs a Choice Experiment approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17561/at.15.4726Keywords:
Declared Preferences, Revealed Preferences, Contingent Valuation, Experiments of ChoiceAbstract
In the Declared Preferences methods (DP) questions are developed to different persons in order to establish alternative hypothetical scenarios. The most important methods which are based in a Declared Preferences hypothesis are the Contingent Valuation (CV) method and those which are based in a Choice Experiment (CE) Approach. In DP methods questions are used in order to establish preferences over hypothetical scenarios, which could be different (either goods or services). Each alternative is described through different attributes, and the answers can be used in order to determine the different preferences. Some very relevant methods which are based in the DP hypothesis can be found which are based in CV and CE approaches
Downloads
References
Adamowicz, W.; Boxall, P.; Williams, M. & Louviere, J. 1998: “Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180269
Adamowicz, W.; Dickie, M.; Gerking, S.; Veronesi, M. & Zinner. D. 2014: “Household decision making and valuation of environmental health risks to parents and their children”, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1, 481–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/679255
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(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0957
Alberini, A. 1995: “Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: Single-bound, double-bound, and bivariate models”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1019
Alemu, M. H.; Mørkbak, M. R.; Søren, B. O., & Carsten L. J. 2013: “Attending to the reasons for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 54, 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9597-8
Andreoni, J. 1989: “Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence”, Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458. https://doi.org/10.1086/261662
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, 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-5545(02)00047-9
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, 4601–14.
Balcombe, K., Burton, M. & Rigby, D. 2011: "Skew and attribute non-attendance within Bayesian mixed logit model", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(3), 446-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.04.004
Balcombe, K.; Fraser, I. & McSorley, E. 2015: "Visual Attention and Attribute Attendance in Multi‐Attribute Choice Experiments", Journal of Applied Econometrics, 30(3), 447-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2383
Balcombe, K.; y Fraser, I. 2011: “A general treatment of “don’t know” responses from choice experiments”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38, 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbr010
Bateman, I. J.; Carson, R. T.; Day, B. H.; Hanemann, W. M.; Hanley, N.; Hett, T.; Jones-Lee, M.; Loomes, G.; Mourato, S.; Özdemiroglu, E. & Pearce, D. W. 2002: Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009727
Bateman, I. J.; Munro, A. & Poe, G. 2008: “Decoy effects in choice experiments contingent valuation: Asymmetric dominance”, Land Economics, 84(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.84.1.115
Bateman, I. J.; Munro, A.; Rhodes, B.; Starmer, C. & Sugden, R. 1997a: “Does partwhole bias exist? An experimental investigation”, Economic Journal, 107(441), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.1997.160.x
Bateman, I. J.; Munro, A; Rhodes, B; Starmer, C & Sudgen, R. 1997b: “A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 479–505. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555262
Bell, J.; Huber, J. & Viscusi, W. K. 2011: “Survey mode effects on valuation of environmental godos”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, 1222–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8041222
Bennett, J. & Blamey, R. (Eds.) 2001: The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bennett, J. 1996. “The contingent valuation: A post Kakadu assessment”, Agenda, A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 3, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.03.02.1996.06
Blamey, R. K.; Bennett, J. W. & Morrison, M. D. 1999: “Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys”, Land Economics, 75(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146997
Bliem, M.; Getzner, M. & Rodiga-Laßnig, P. 2012: “Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment”, Journal of Environmental Management, 103, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.029
Bliemer, M. C. J. & Rose, J. M. 2010: “Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations”, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(6), 720–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2009.12.004
Blumberg, S. J.; Luke, J. V.; Ganesh, N.; Davern, M. E. & Boudreaux, M. H. 2012: “Wireless substitution: State-level estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2011”, National Health Statistics Reports, 61, Hyattsville (MD, United States), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Boeri, M.; Scarpa, R. & Chorus. C. 2014: "Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?" Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61, 121-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.003
Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L. & Moon, A. 2009: “Complexity in choice experiments: Choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement”, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53(4), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2009.00469.x
Boyd, J. & Krupnick, A. 2009: “The definition and choice of environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation”, RFF Discussion Paper 09–35, Washington, DC (USA), Resources for the Future. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1479820
Boyd, J. & Krupnick, A. 2013: “Using ecological production theory to define and select environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation”, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 42(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500007590
Boyd, J.; Ringold, P.; Krupnick, A.; Johnston, R. J.; Weber, M. A. & Hall, K. 2016: “Ecosystem services indicators: Improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses”, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 8, no.3-4, 359–443. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000073
Boyle, K. J. & Bishop, R. C. 1988: “Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: A comparison of techniques, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241972
Boyle, K.; Paterson, R.; Carson, R.; Leggett, C.; Kanninen, B.; Molenar, J. & Neumann, J. 2016: "Valuing shifts in the distribution of visibility in national parks and wilderness areas in the United States", Journal of environmental management, 173, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.01.042
Brick, J. M., & Williams, D. 2013: “Explaining rising nonresponse rates in cross-sectional surveys”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212456834
Brown, T. C. & Gregory, R. 1999: “Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters”, Ecological Economics, 28(3), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00050-0
Burton, M., & Rigby, D. 2012: “The self selection of complexity in choice experiments”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(3), 786–800. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas015
Bush, G.; Hanley, N; Moro, M. & Rondeau, D. 2013: “Measuring the local costs of conservation: A provision point mechanism for eliciting willingness to accept compensation”, Land Economics, 89(3), 490–513. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.89.3.490
Cameron, T. A.; DeShazo, J. R. & Johnson. E. H. 2011: “Scenario adjustment in stated preference research”, Journal of Choice Modelling, 4(1), 9–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70017-4
Cameron, T. A; Poe, G. L.; Ethier, R. G. & Schulze, W. D. 2002: “Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same?”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44 (3), 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1210
Carson, D.; Gilmore, A.; Perry, C. y Grønhaug, K. 2001: Qualitative Market Research. London (United Kingdom), Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209625
Carson, R. 2012: “Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27
Carson, R. T. & Louviere, J. L. 2011: “A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 49, 539–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9450-x
Carson, R. T.; Flores; N. F. & Meade, N. F. 2001: “Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243
Carson, R. T.; Groves, T. & List, J. A. 2014: “Consequentiality: A theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice”, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1, 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1086/676450
Carson, R. T.; Mitchell, R. C.; Hanemann, M.; Kopp, R. J.; Presser, S. & Ruud, P. A. 2003: “Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 25, 257–289. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486702104
Caussade, S.; Ortúzara, J.; Rizzia, L. I. & Hensherb, D. A. 2005: "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates", Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 39(7), 621-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2004.07.006
Coast, J. & Horrocks, S. A. 2007: “Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods”, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 12(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581907779497602
Coast, J. 1999: “The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics”, Health Economics, 8(4), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199906)8:4<345::AID-HEC432>3.0.CO;2-Q
Coast, J.; Hareth A-J.; Sutton, E. J.; Horrocks, S. A.; Vosper, A. J.; Swancutt, D. R. & Flynn, T. 2012: “Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: Issues and recommendations”, Health Economics, 21, 730–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1739
Cooper, J. C. & Loomis, J. 1992: “Sensitivity of willingness-to-pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models”, Land Economics, 68(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146775
Cooper, J. C. 1993: “Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1993.1002
Costanza, R.; d'Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O'Neill, R. V.; Paruelo, J.; Raskin, R. G.; Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. 1997: "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital", Nature, 387, 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Curtin, R.; Presser, S.; & Singer, E. 2000: “The effects of response rate changes on the Index of Consumer Sentiment”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1086/318638
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.09.001
De Bekker-Grob, E.; Ryan, M & Gerard, K. 2012: “Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literatura”, Health Economics, 21, 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1697
Dellaert, B. G. C.; Donkers, B. & Van Soest, A. 2012: “Complexity effects in choice experimentbased models”, Journal of Marketing Research, 49(3), 424–434. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.09.0315
Dillman, D. A.; Smyth, J. A. & Christian, L. M. 2014: Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. 4th edition. Hoboken (NJ, United States), John Wiley & Sons.
Ericson, K. & Fuster, A. 2014: “The endowment effect”, Annual Review of Economics, 6, 555–579. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041320
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(3), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2006.10.007
Fiebig, D.; Keane, M. P.; Louviere, J. & Wasi, N. 2009: “The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity”, Marketing Science, 29(3), 393-421. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0508
Foster, V, & Mourato, S. 2003: “Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022856329552
Gigerenzer, G.; Todd, P. M. & the ABC Research Group. 1999: Simple heuristics that make us Smart, New York (United States), Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, I., & Roosen, J. 2007: “Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34(2), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-007-9006-9
Groves, R. M. 2006: “Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl033
Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. 2008: “The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn011
Haab, T. C. & McConnell, K. 2002 “Valuing environmental and natural resources”, The econometrics of non-market valuation, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843765431
Hanemann, W. M. 1994. “Valuing the environment through contingent valuation”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.19
Hanley, N.; MacMillan, D.; Wright, R.E; Bullock, C.; Simpson, I.; Parsisson, D. & Crabtree. B. 1998: “Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998.tb01248.x
Hanley, N.; Mourato, S. & Wright, R. E. 2001: “Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation?”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00145
Hensher, D. A. & Layton. D. 2010: “Parameter transfer of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: Implications for willingness to pay”, Transportation, 37(3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9260-6
Hensher, D. A. & Rose, J. M. 2009: “Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or nonattendance: Implications for willingness to pay”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45, 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2008.12.001
Hensher, D. A. 2006a: “How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 21(6), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.877
Hensher, D. A. 2006b: “Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: An initial assessment”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 34(1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3782-y
Hess, S. & Daly, A. (Eds.) 2013: Choice modelling: The state of the art and the state of practice, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hess, S. & Daly, A. (Eds.) 2014: Handbook of choice modelling, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781003152
Hoehn, J. P., Lupi, F. & Kaplowitz, M- D. 2010: “Stated choice experiments with complex ecosystem changes: The effect of information formats on estimated variances and choice parameters”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35(3), 568–590. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23243072
Horowitz, J., McConnell, K. & Murphy, J. 2013: “Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation”, in Handbook on experimental economics and the environment, John A. List & Michael K. Price (Eds.), 115–156. Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009079
Islam, T.; Louviere J. & Burke, P. F. 2007: “Modeling the effects of including/excluding attributes in choice experiments on systematic and random components”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(4), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.04.002
Jin, J.; Wang; Z. & Ran, S. 2006: “Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao”, Ecological Economics, 57(3), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.020
Johnson, F. R.; Kanninen, B.; Bingham, M. & Özdemir, S. 2006: Experimental design for stated choice studies, in Kanninen, B. J. (Eds.): Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies. New York (United States), Springer, 159-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5313-4_7
Johnson, F. R.; Lancsar, E.; Marshall, D; Kilambi, V.; Mühlbacher, A.; Regier, D. A.; Bresnahan, B. .; 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 forcé”, Value in Health, 16(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
Johnston, R. 2006: "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding referendum", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52, 469-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2005.12.003
Johnston, R.; Schultz, E. T.; Segerson, K.; Besedin, E. Y. & Ramachandran M. 2016: “Biophysical causality and environmental preference elicitation: Evaluating the validity of welfare analysis over intermediate outcomes”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99(1), 163-185. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaw073
Johnston, R.; Swallow, S. & Weaver, T. 1999: "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38(1), 97-120. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1999.1077
Kahneman D.; Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (Eds.) 1982: Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge (United Kingdom), Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477
Kanninen, B. 1993a: “Design of sequential experiments for contingent valuation studies”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(1), S1–S11. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1993.1029
Kanninen, B. 1993b: “Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation”, Land Economics, 69(2), 138–146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3146514
Kanninen, B. 1995: “Bias in discrete response contingent valuation”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1008
Keeter, S.; Kennedy, C; Dimock, M.; Best, J. & Craighill, P. 2006: “Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 759–779. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl035
Keeter, S.; Miller, C.; Kohut A.; Groves, R. M. & Presser, S. 2000: “Consequencs of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1086/317759
Kim, Y.; Kling, C. L. & Zhao, J. 2015: “Understanding behavioral explanations of the WTP-WTA divergence through a neoclassical lens: Implications for environmental policy”, Annual Review of Resource Economics, 7(1), 169–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012501
Kling, C. L.; Phaneuf, D. J. & Zhao. J. 2012: “From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.3
Knetsch, J. L. 2007: “Biased valuations, damage assessments, and policy choices: The choice of measure matters”, Ecological Economics, 63(4), 684–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.012
Leggett, C. G.; Kleckner, N. S.; Boyle, K. J.; Dufield, J. W. & Mitchell, R. C. 2003: "Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews", Land Economics, 79(4), 561-575. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147300
Lewbel, A. 2000: “Semiparametric qualitative response model estimation with unknown heteroscedasticity or instrumental variables”, Journal of Econometrics, 97 (1), 145-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(00)00015-4
Lewbel, A.; McFadden, D. & Linton, O. 2011. “Estimating features of a distribution from binomial data”, Journal of Econometrics, 162(2), 170-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.11.006
Lindhjem, H. & Navrud, S. 2011a: “Are internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?”, Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1628–1637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.002
Lindhjem, H. & Navrud, S. 2011b: “Using internet in stated preference surveys: a review and comparison of survey modes”, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5, 309-351. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000045
Link, M. W., Battaglia, M. P.; Frankel, M. R.; Osborn, L. & Mokdad, A. H. 2008: “A comparison of address-based sampling (ABS) versus random digit-dialing (RDD) for general population surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn003
List, J. A. & Gallet, C. A. 2001: “What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012791822804
Little, J. & Berrens, R. 2004: “Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis”, Economics Bulletin, 3(6), 1–13.
Loomis, J. 1989: "Test–retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241776
Loomis, J. 1996: “How large is the extent of the market for public goods: Evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey”, Applied Economics, 28, 779–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368496328209
Lundquist, P. & Särndal, C-E. 2013: “Aspects of responsive design with applications to the Swedish living conditions survey”, Journal of Official Statistics, 29, 557–582. https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2013-0040
Lusk, J. L. & Schroeder, T. C. 2004: “Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00592.x
Macmillan, D. C.; Philip, L.; Hanley, N. & Alvarez-Farizo, B. 2002: “Valuing the nonmarket benefits of wild goose conservation: A comparison of interview and group-based approaches”, Ecological Economics, 43, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00182-9
Madureira, L., Nunes, L. C.& Santos, J. M. L. 2005: “Valuing multi-attribute environmental changes: Contingent valuation and choice experiments”, Paper presented at 14th annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Bremen, June 23–26.
Mazzotta, M. J. & Opaluch, J. J. 1995: “Decision making when choices are complex: A test of Heiner’s hypothesis”, Land Economics, 71(4), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146714
McFadden, D. 2014: “The new science of pleasure: Consumer behavior and the measurement of well-being”, in Hess, S. & Daly, A. (Eds.): Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing, 7–48. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781003152.00007
Merkle, D. & Edelman, M. 2002: “Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis”, in Groves, R. M.; Dillman, D. A.; Eltinge, J. L. & Roderick, J.A. (Eds.): Survey nonresponse. New York (United States), Wiley, 243–258.
Meyerhoff, J.; Oehlmann, M. & Weller, P. 2015: “The influence of design dimensions on stated choices in an environmental context”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 61, 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9797-5
Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. 1989: Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method, Washington, DC (United States), Resources for the Future.
Mogas, J.; Riera, P. & Bennett, J. 2006: “A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions”, Journal of Forest Economics, 12(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2005.11.001
Mørkbak, M. R. & Olsen, S. 2015: “A within-sample investigation of test- retest reliability in choice experiment surveys with real economic incentives”, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12067
Moser, R.; Raffaelli, R. & Notaro, S. 2013: “Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents’ own money”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbt016
Murphy, J. J.; Allen, P. G.; Stevens, T. H. & Weatherhead, D. 2005: “A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z
Olsen, S. B. & Meyerhoff, J. 2016: “Will the alphabet soup of design criteria affect discrete choice experiment results?”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 44(2), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbw014
Peytchev, A. 2009: “Survey breakoff”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 74–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp014
Presser, S.; Couper, M. P.; Lessler, J. T.; Martin, E., Martin, J.; Rothgeb, J. M. & Singer, E. 2004: “Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 1, 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh008
Promberger, M.; Dolan, P. & Marteau. 2012. “Pay them if it works: Discrete choice experiments on the acceptability of financial incentives to change health related behaviour”, Social Science and Medicine, 75(12), 2509–2514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.033
Revelt, D. & Train, K. 1998: “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 647-657. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557735
Riera, P.; Signorello, G.; Thiene, M.; Mahieu, P.-H.; Navrud, S.; Kaval, P.; Rulleau, B.; Mavsar, R.; Madureira, L.; Meyerhoff, J.; Elsasser, P.; Notaro, De Salvo, M.; Giergiczny, M. & Dragoi, S. 2012: “Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines”, Journal of Forest Economics, 18(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.07.001
Rose, J. M. & Bliemer, M. C. J. 2009: “Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs”, Transport Reviews, 29(5), 587–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640902827623
Rose, J. M. & Bliemer, M. C. J. 2014: “Stated choice experimental design theory: The who, the what and the why”, in Hess, S. & Daly, A. (Eds.): Handbook of choice modelling, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing, 7, 152-177. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:elg:eechap:14820_7
Rose, J. M.; Bliemer, M. C. J.; Hensher, D. A. & Collins, A. T. 2008: “Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives”, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 42(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.09.002
Ryan, M. 2004: “A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values”, Health Economics, 13(3), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.818
Sandor, Z., & Wedel, M. 2002: “Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models”, Marketing Science, 21, 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.21.4.455.131
Sandorf, E. D.; Aanesen, M. & Navrud, S. 2016: “Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos”, Ecological Economics, 129, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.008
Sandorf, E. D.; Campbell, D. & Hanley, N. 2017: “Disentangling the influence of knowledge on attribute non-attendance”, Journal of Choice Modelling, 24, 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2016.09.003
Sarkar, A.; Aronson, K.; Patil, S.; Hugar, L. & Vanloon, G. 2012: “Emerging health risks associated with modern agriculture practices: A comprehensive study in India”, Environmental research, 115, 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.005
Sarkar, A.; Sensarma, S. R.; vanLoon, G. W. (Eds) 2019: Sustainable Solutions for Food Security. Dordrecht (Holland), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77878-5
Scarpa, R. & Alberini, A. (Eds.) 2005: Applications of simultaneous methods in environmental and resource economics, The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources. Dordrecht (Holland), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3684-1
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00436.x
Scarpa, R.; Gilbride, T. J.; Campbell, D. & Hensher, D. A. 2009: “Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbp012
Scarpa, R.; Thiene, M. & Marangon, F. 2008: “Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods”, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 56(2), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00122.x
Šĉasný, M. & Alberini, A. 2012: “Valuation of mortality risk attributable to climate change: Investigating the effect of survey administration modes on a VSL”, International Journal Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 4760–4781. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9124760
Smith, V. K. 2006: “Judging quality”, in Kanninen, B. J. (Ed.): Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies: A common sense approach to theory and practice. Dordrecht (Holland), Springer, 297-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5313-4
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(2), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2941
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(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1086/321952
Teisl, M. F.; Boyle, K. J.; McCollum, D. W. & Reiling, S. D. 1995: “Test-retest reliability of contingent valuation with independent sample pretest and posttest control groups”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(3), 613–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243229
Tourangeau, R. & Plewes, T. J. (Eds.) 2013: Nonresponse in social science survey. Washington, DC (United States), The National Academies Press. https://researchsociety.com.au/documents/item/1496
Tourangeau, R., Conrad, F. G., & Couper, M. P. 2013: The science of web surveys, New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199747047.001.0001
Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P. & Conrad, F. 2004: “Spacing, position, and order: Interpretive heuristics for visual features of survey questions”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 368–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh035
Train, K. E. 2009: Discrete choice methods with simulation, New York (United States), Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805271
Vermeulen, B.; Goos, P.; Scarpa, P. & Vandebroek, M. 2011: “Bayesian conjoint choice designs for measuring willingness to pay”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9401-6
Vossler, C. A. & Kerkvliet, J. 2003: “A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 631 - 649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00017-7
Vossler, C. A. & Watson, S. B. 2013: “Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 86, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.007
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. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.4.4.145
Watanabe, S. 2010: "Asymptotic equivalence of Bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory", Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 3571–3594.
Windle, J. & Rolfe, J. 2011: “Comparing responses from internet and paper-based collection methods in more complex stated preference environmental valuation surveys”, Economic Analysis and Policy, 41(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(11)50006-2
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
© Universidad de Jaén-Seminario Permanente Agua, territorio y medio ambiente-CSIC.
The originals published in the printed and electronic editions of this journal are the property of the University of Jaén and the Seminario Permanente Agua, territorio y medio ambiente (CSIC), as well as the universities that publish specific monographs in Latin America or Europe. The origin must be cited in any partial or total reproduction.
Unless otherwise indicated, all the contents of the electronic edition are distributed under a "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Spain" (CC-by) licence. You can consult from here the informative version and the legal text of the license. This circumstance must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
