Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attribute-Based Methods

  • Chapter
A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation

Part of the book series: The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources ((ENGO,volume 3))

Abstract

Stated preference methods of environmental valuation have been used by economists for decades where behavioral data have limitations. The contingent valuation method (Chapter 5) is the oldest stated preference approach, and hundreds of contingent valuation studies have been conducted. More recently, and especially over the last decade, a new class of stated preference methods has been developed, which we generically refer to as attribute-based methods (ABMs). As with contingent valuation, numerous ABM variants exist, employing, for example, different constructs for eliciting preferences. In this chapter, we describe the various ABMs currently used, explain how to construct an attribute-based experiment, and recommend methods for environmental valuation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. 1998. Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80:64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz, W., J Louviere, and J. Swait. 1998. Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods. Final Report to Resource Valuation Branch, Damage Assessment Center, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz, W., J. Swait, P. Boxall, J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz, W. L., J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1994. Combining Stated and Revealed Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:271–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adelman, S. 1962. Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments. Technometrics 4:21–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. 1970. Functional Measurement and Psychophysical Judgement. Psychological Review 77:153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf, M. R., F. R. Johnson, and K. E. Matthews. 2001. Opt-out Alternatives and Anglers’ Stated Preferences. In The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Edited by J. Bennett, and R. Blarney. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. H. 1977. Axiomatic Conjoint Measurement. Decision Sciences 8:548–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beggs, S., S. Cardell, and J. Hausman. 1981. Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars. Journal of Econometrics 16:1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., and S. R. Lerman. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application To Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., T. Morikawa, and F. Shiroishi. 1992. Analysis of the Reliability of Preference Ranking Data. Journal of Business Research 24:149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P., W. Adamowicz, M. Williams, J. Swait, and J. Louviere. 1996. A Comparison of Stated Preference Approaches to the Measurement of Environmental Values. Ecological Economics 18:243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P. C, and W. L. Adamowicz. 1999. Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: The Use of Latent Class Analysis. Staff Paper 99-02, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., T. P. Holmes, M. F. Teisl, and B. Roe. 2001. A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83:441–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, W. A., and S. N. Durlauf. 1995. Discrete Choice with Social Interactions I: Theory. NBER Working Paper Series, 5291. October. Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownstone, D., and K. Train. 1996. Forecasting New Product Penetration with Flexible Substitution Patterns. Paper presented at American Economic Association meetings, New Orleans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, F., and P. Martinsson. 2001. Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments? Application to Valuation of the Environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41:179–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmone, F. J., and P. E. Green. 1981. Model Misspecification in Multiattribute Parameter Estimation. Journal of Marketing Research 18:87–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, P., and D. R. Wittink. 1982. Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey. Journal of Marketing 46:44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, R. G., and R. Staelin. 1982. Exploiting Rank-Ordered Choice Set Data within the Stochastic Utility Model. Journal of Marketing Research 19:288–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, K-H., and C-G Moon. 1997. Generalized Extreme Value Model and Additively Separable Generator Function. Journal of Econometrics 76:129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W. G., and G. M. Cox. 1957. Experimental Designs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court, A. T. 1939. Hedonic Price Indexes with Automotive Examples. In The Dynamics of Automobile Demand. New York: General Motors.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys — the Total Design Method. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, V., and S. Mourato. 2000. Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 51:1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gan, C., and E. J. Luzar. 1993. A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 25:36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, G. D., and K. G. Willis. 1996. The Non-Use Benefits of Enhancing Forest Biodiversity: A Contingent Rank Study. Ecological Economics 21:45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, G. D., and K. G. Willis. 1998. Using Contingent Ranking to Estimate the Loss of Amenity Value for Inland Waterways from Public Utility Service Structures. Environmental and Resource Economics 12:241–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and V. R. Rao. 1971. Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data. Journal of Marketing Research 8:355–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and V. Srinivasan. 1978. Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook. Journal of Consumer Research 5:103–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and Y. Wind. 1975. New Way to Measure Consumers’ Judgments. Harvard Business Review 53:107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., J. D. Carroll, and S. M. Goldberg. 1981. A General Approach to Product Design Optimization via Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing 45:17–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. 1961. Hedonic Price Indexes for Automobiles: An Econometric Analysis of Quality Change. In Price Indexes and Quality Change: Studies in New Methods of Measurement. Edited by Z. Griliches. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., and P.K. Chintagunta. 1994. On Using Demographic Variables to Determine Segment Membership in Logit Mixture Models. Journal of Marketing Research 31:128–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haener, M., P. C. Boxall, and W. L. Adamowicz. 2000. Modeling Recreation Site Choice: Do Hypothetical Choices Reflect Actual Behavior? American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 83(3):629–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, G. J., and S. S. Shapiro. 1966. A Catalog and Computer Program for the Design and Analysis of Orthogonal Symmetric and Asymmetric Fractional Factorial Experiments. Technical Report 66-C 165. Schnectady, NY: General Electric Research and Development Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R. 1955. Probabilistic Functioning and the Clinical Method. Psychological Review 62:255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W. M. 1999. Welfare Analysis with Discrete Choice Models. In Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by C. Kling, and J. Herriges. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., D. Macmillan, R. Wright, C. Bullock, I. Simpson, D. Parrsisson, and B. Crabtree. 1998. Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., R. Wright, and W. Adamowicz. 1998. Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 11:413–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A., G. K. Leonard, and D. McFadden. 1995. A Utility-Consistent Combined Discrete Choice and Count Data Model Assessing Recreational Use Losses Due to Natural Resource Damage. Journal of Public Economics 56:1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A., and P. A. Ruud. 1987. Specifying and Testing Econometric Models for Rank-Ordered Data. Journal of Econometrics 34:83–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. A. 1994. Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice. Transportation 21:107–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T. P., K. Alger, C. Zinkhan, and E. Mercer. 1998. The Effect of Response Time on Conjoint Analysis Estimates of Rainforest Protection Values. Journal of Forest Economics 4:7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T. P., and K. J. Boyle. 2002. Using Stated Preference Methods to Estimate the Value of Forest Attributes. In Forests in a Market Economy. Edited by K. A. Lee, and E. O. Sills Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C. 1986. Analysis of Panel Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., and J. McCann. 1982. The Impact of Inferential Beliefs on Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research 19:324–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. 1997. What Have We Learned from 20 Years of Conjoint Research: When to Use Self-Explicated, Graded Pairs, Full Profiles, or Choice Experiments. Paper presented at Sawtooth Software Conference, August. Accessed at www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/whatlrnd.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. R., and W. Desvousges. 1997. Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34:79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H., R. D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky. 1969. Foundations of Measurement. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. 1966. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy 74:132–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lareau, T. J., and D. A. Rae. 1989. Valuing WTP for Diesel Odor Reductions: An Application of Contingent Ranking Technique. Southern Economic Journal 55:728–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. F. 2000. Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40:21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Methods-Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J. 1988a. Analyzing Individual Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Sage University Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 67. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J. 1994. Conjoint Analysis. In Advances in Marketing Research. Edited by R. Bagozzi. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. L., and D. A. Hensher. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. L., and G. Woodworth. 1983. Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data. Journal of Marketing Research 20:350–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. 1959. Individual Choice Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., and J. W. Tukey. 1964. Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1:1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, J. 1993. A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75:593–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. 1977. The Structure of Random Utility Models. Theory and Decision 8:229–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. F. 2000 Economic Analysis of Social Interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 14:115–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschak, J. 1960. Binary Choice Constraints on Random Utility Indicators. In Stanford Symposium on Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Edited by K. Arrow. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzotta, M. J., and J. J. Opaluch. 1995. Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner’s Hypothesis. Land Economics 71:500–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics. Edited by P. Zarembka. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. 1981. Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Edited by C. Manski, and D. McFadden. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. 1986. The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research. Marketing Science 5:275–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D., and K. Train. 2000. Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 15:447–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean, R., and V. Anderson. 1984. Applied Factorial and Fractional Designs. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. L., and M. B. Holbrook. 1990. Conjoint Analysis on Objects with Environmentally Correlated Attributes: The Questionable Importance of Representative Design. Journal of Consumer Research 16:490–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, E. R. 1999. Two RUMs uncloaked: nested logit models of site choice and nested logit models of participation and site choice. In Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by J. A. Herriges, and C. L. Kling. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, E. R., and D. M. Waldman. 1998. Measurement Error in Recreation Demand Models: The Joint Estimation of Participation, Site Choice and Site Characteristics. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35:262–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M., and K. Boyle. 2001. Comparative Reliability of Rank and Choice Data in Stated Preference Models. Paper presented at the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics 2001 Conference, Southampton, UK, June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opaluch, J. J., S. Swallow, T. Weaver, C. Wessels, and D. Wichlens. 1993. Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Waste Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24:41–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson G. L. 1967. A Model of Preference: Quantitative Analysis of the Perception of the Visual Appearance of Residential Neighborhoods. Journal of Regional Science 7:19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rae, D. A. 1983. The Value to Visitors of Improving Visibility at Mesa Verde and Great Smoky National Parks. In Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas. Edited by R. D. Rowe, and L. G. Chestnut. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revelt, D., and K. Train. 1998. Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households’ Choice of Appliance Efficiency Level. Review of Economics and Statistics 53:647–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, B., K. J. Boyle, and M. F. Teisl. 1996. Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31:145–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shonkwiler, J. S., and W. D. Shaw. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small K. A., and H. S. Rosen. 1981. Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models. Econometrica 49:105–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K., and W. H. Desvousges. 1986. Measuring Water Quality Benefits. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K., and G. van Houtven. 1998. Non-market Valuation and the Household. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 98-31. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. 1974. Statistical Methods. Ames: Iowa University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J., and W. Adamowicz. 2001a. The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching. Journal of Consumer Research 28:135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J., and W. Adamowicz. 2001b. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J., and J. Louviere. 1993. The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Use of Multinomial Logit Models. Journal of Marketing Research 30:305–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. 1927. A Law of Comparative Judgment. Psychology Review 34:273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, W. S. 1958. Theory and Method of Scaling. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. E. 1998. Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People. Land Economics 74(2):230–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. E. 1999. Mixed Logit Models for Recreation Demand. In Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Edited by J. A. Herriges, and C. L. Kling. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K., W. A. Magat, and J. Huber. 1991. Pricing Environmental Health Risks: Survey Assessments of Risk-Risk and Risk-Dollar Tradeoffs for Chronic Bronchitis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21:32–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, B. J. 1971. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yellot, J. I. 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, USA

    Thomas P. Holmes & Wiktor L. Adamowicz

  2. University of Alberta, USA

    Thomas P. Holmes & Wiktor L. Adamowicz

Authors
  1. Thomas P. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wiktor L. Adamowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Patricia A. Champ  & Thomas C. Brown  & 

  2. Department of Resource Economics & Policy, University of Maine, USA

    Kevin J. Boyle (Libra Professor of Environmental Economics) (Libra Professor of Environmental Economics)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Holmes, T.P., Adamowicz, W.L. (2003). Attribute-Based Methods. In: Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C. (eds) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1445-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0826-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation