Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 491–510 | Cite as

Tough and Easy Choices: Testing the Influence of Utility Difference on Stated Certainty-in-Choice in Choice Experiments

  • Søren Bøye OlsenEmail author
  • Thomas Hedemark Lundhede
  • Jette Bredahl Jacobsen
  • Bo Jellesmark Thorsen
Article

Abstract

Respondents in Stated Preference studies may be uncertain about their preferences for the good presented to them. Inspired by Wang (J Environ Econ Manag 32:219–232, 1997) we hypothesize that respondents’ stated certainty in choice increases with the utility difference between the alternative chosen and the best alternative to that. We test this hypothesis using data from two independent Choice Experiments both focusing on nature values. In modelling respondents’ self-reported certainty in choice, we find evidence that the stated level of certainty increases significantly as utility difference in choice sets increases. In addition, stated certainty increases with income. Furthermore, there is some evidence that male respondents are inherently more certain in their choices than females, and a learning effect may increase stated certainty. We find evidence of this in the first study where the good is described in rather broad and generic terms, but not in the second study where a more specific description of the good is used.

Keywords

Choice experiment Environmental valuation Learning effect Respondent uncertainty Stated preferences Utility balance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberini A, Boyle K, Welsh M (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 45: 40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman I, Burgess D, Hutchinson WG, Matthews DI (2008) Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manag 55: 127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berrens RP, Jenkins-Smith H, Bohara A, Silva CL (2006) Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 44: 144–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braga J, Starmer C (2005) Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environ Res Econ 32: 55–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brouwer R, Dekker T, Rolfe J, Windle J (2010) Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environ Res Econ 46: 93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown CT, Kingsley D, Peterson GL, Flores NE, Clarke A, Birjulin A (2008) Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement. J Pub Econ 92: 1595–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bush G, Colombo S, Hanley N (2009) Should all choices count? Using the cut-offs approach to edit responses in a choice experiment. Environ Res Econ 44(3): 397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell D (2008) Identification and analysis of discontinuous preferences in discrete choice experiments. Paper presented at EAERE 16th annual conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 25–28 2008, 14 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag 41: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Champ A, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33: 151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Domencich T, McFadden D (1975) Urban travel demand: a behavioural analysis. North-Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrini S, Scarpa R (2007) Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manag 53: 342–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flachaire E, Hollard G (2007) Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Res Energy Econ 29: 183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene WH, Hensher DA (2007) Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 43: 610–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agr Econ 66: 332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanley N, Shogren JF (2005) Is cost-benefit analysis anomaly-proof?. Environ Res Econ 32: 13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hensher DA (2008) Joint estimation of process and outcome in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. J Transp Econ Pol 42: 32–297Google Scholar
  18. Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice Designs. J Market Res 33: 307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2010) Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecol Econ 69: 532–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Boiesen JH, Anthon S, Tranberg J (2006) Værdisætning af syv mulige nationalparker i Danmark [Valuation of seven potential national parks in Denmark]. Workingpaper 28, Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, pp 63Google Scholar
  21. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N (2008) What’s in a Name? The use of quantitative measures vs. ‘iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity. Environ Res Econ 39: 249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johansson-Stenman O, Svedsäter H (2008) Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: the importance of cognitive consistency. Top Econ Anal Pol 8: 1–8Google Scholar
  23. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Nancarrow BE (2006) The role of uncertainty in the relationship between fairness evaluations and willingness to pay. Ecol Econ 56: 104–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamenica E (2008) Contextual Inference in Markets: On Informational Content of Product Lines. Am Econ Rev 98(5): 2127–2149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhfeld W (2004) Marketing research methods in SAS, experimental design , choice, conjoint and graphical techniques. SAS Institute Inc, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Ladenburg J, Olsen SB (2008) Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manag 56: 275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li C, Mattsson L. (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 28: 256–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?. Quart J Econ 118: 41–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. List JA, Sinha P, Taylor MH (2006) Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: evidence from field experiments. Adv Econ Anal Pol 6: 1–37Google Scholar
  30. Loomis J, Ekstrand E (1998) Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl. Ecol Econ 27: 29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods. Analysis and Applications University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luchini S, Watson V (2008) Does respondent uncertainty explain framing effects in double bounded contingent valuation? GREQAM, Working Paper no. 2008-6Google Scholar
  33. Lundhede TH, Olsen SB, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2009) Handling respondent uncertainty in choice experiments: evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modelling of uncertainty. J Choice Model 2(2): 118–147Google Scholar
  34. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press Inc, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  35. McKelvey M, Zavoina R (1975) A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J Math Sociol 4: 103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morrison M, Brown TC (2009) Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Res Econ 44(3): 307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olsen S (2009) Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environ Res Econ 44(4): 591–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olsen S, Ladenburg J, Petersen ML, Lopdrup U, Hansen AS, Dubgaard A (2005) Motorways versus Nature—a welfare economic valuation of impacts, Report from FOI and IMV, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  39. Puckett SM, Hensher DA (2008) The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders. Trans Res Part E 44: 379–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ready S, Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J Environ Econ Manag 29: 181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Samnaliev M, Stevens TH, More T (2006) A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 57: 507–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scarpa R, Ruto ESK, Kristjanson P, Radeny M, Drucher AG, Rege JEO (2003) Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates. Ecol Econ 45: 409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scarpa R, Ferrini S, Willis K (2005) Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. The economics of non-market goods and resources, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 247–273Google Scholar
  44. Scarpa R, Willis K, Acutt M (2007) Valuing externalities from water supply: status quo, choice complexity, and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. J Environ Plann Manag 50: 449–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scarpa R, Thiene M, Marangon F (2008) Using flexible taste distributions to value collective reputation for environmentally friendly production methods. Can J Agr Econ 56: 145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwarz N, Sudman S (1996) Answering questions, methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  47. Sun L, van Kooten GC (2009) Comparing fuzzy and probabilistic approaches to preference uncertainty in non-market valuation. Environ Res Econ 42: 471–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sælensminde K (2001) Inconsistent choices in stated choice data; use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases. Transportation 28: 269–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang H (1997) Treatment of “Don’t-Know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manag 32: 219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manag 36: 170–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Søren Bøye Olsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Hedemark Lundhede
    • 2
  • Jette Bredahl Jacobsen
    • 2
  • Bo Jellesmark Thorsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Unit of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Life Science FacultyUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  2. 2.Division of Economics, Policy and Management Planning, Forest and Landscape, Life Science Faculty, and Center for Macroecology, Evolution and ClimateUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark

Personalised recommendations