Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 539–559 | Cite as

A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches

Open Access
Article

Abstract

It is often difficult to determine what actually was done in work involving data collected with stated preference surveys because the terms used to describe various procedures have ambiguous and sometimes conflicting meanings. Further, terms used to describe data collection procedures often are confounded with terms used to describe statistical techniques. We call for the use of a common nomenclature to describe what was done in a data collection effort for stated preference studies, and take a first step at setting out such nomenclature. We only seek to improve clarity in the communication of research results and take no position here on appropriateness of particular procedures.

Keywords

Contingent valuation Discrete choice modeling Survey questions 

JEL Classification

Q51 D6 H4 I18 M31 

References

  1. Adamowicz V, Boxall P, Louviere JJ, Williams M (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1): 64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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(1): 40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberini A, Kanninen B, Carson RT (1997) Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Econ 73(3): 309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Association for Public Opinion Research (2009) Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 6th edn. American Association for Public Opinion Research, Deerfield, ILGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson NI (1970) Functional measurements and psychophysical judgment. Psychol Rev 73(3): 153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601–4614Google Scholar
  7. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Dupont D, Georgiou S (2009) Procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method. Rev Econ Stat 91(4): 807–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Loomes G, Sugden R (2007) Can ranking techniques elicit robust values?. J Risk Uncertain 34(1): 49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol Econ 12(2): 161–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav Sci 9(3): 226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett, J, Blamey, R (eds) (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  12. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M (1997) Standard gamble, time trade-off, and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ 16(2): 155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1991) Referendum contingent valuation estimates: sensitivity to assignment of offered values. J Am Stat Assoc 86(416): 910–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carson RT (1985) Three essays on contingent valuation. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Carson RT (1991) Constructed market. In: Braden J, Kolstad C (eds) Measuring the demand for environmental commodities. NorthHolland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Carson RT (2010) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, NorthhamptonGoogle Scholar
  17. Carson RT, Conaway MB, Hanemann WM, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Presser S (2004) Valuing oil spill prevention: a case study of California’s central coast. Kluwer Academic Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19(2): 173–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1): 181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Stanley Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK (1998) Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA Panel’s no-vote recommendation. Rev Econ Stat 80(2): 335–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carson RT, Louviere JJ, Philens D (2010) Design of discrete choice experiments: a discussion of issues that matter in future applied research. J Choice ModelGoogle Scholar
  22. Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1993) The value of clean water: the public’s willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resour Res 29(7): 2445–2454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1995) Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 28(2): 155–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Ruud P (1990) Valuing air quality improvements: simulating a hedonic pricing equation in the context of a contingent valuation scenario. In: Mathai CV (ed) Visibility and fine particulates. Air and Waste Management Association, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  25. Champ RA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, Daniel W, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33(2): 151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chapman RG, Staelin R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J Market Res 19(3): 288–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cooper JC, Hanemann WM, Signorello G (2002) One-and-one-half bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev Econ Stat 84(4): 742–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Crouch GI, Oppewal H, Huybers T, Dolnicar S, Louviere JJ, Devinney T (2007) Discretionary expenditures and tourism consumption: insights from a choice experiment. J Travel Res 45(3): 247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cummings R, Taylor L (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Davis RK (1963) The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the maine woods. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  31. Desvouges WH, Smith VK, Fisher A (1987) Option price estimates for water quality improvements: a contingent valuation study for the Monongahela River. J Environ Econ Manag 14(3): 248–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Echessah PN, Swallow BM, Kamara DW, Curry JJ (1997) Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya. World Dev 25(2): 239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Englin J, Cameron TA (2002) Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data. Environ Resour Econ 7(2): 133–147Google Scholar
  34. 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(3): 342–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Flynn T, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coates J (2007) Best-worse scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it?. J Health Econ 26(1): 171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Forsgren E (1992) Predation risks affects mate choice in Gobiid fish. Am Nat 140(6): 1041–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gafni A (1994) The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res 29(2): 207–224Google Scholar
  38. Green P, Rao V (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J Mark Res 8(3): 355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Graham DA (1981) Cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty. Am Econ Rev 71(4): 715–725Google Scholar
  40. Hammack J, Brown GM (1974) Waterfowl and wetlands: toward a bioeconomic analysis. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Hanley N, MacMillian D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49(1): 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hanemann WM, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73(4): 1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hellmuth T, Walther H, Zajonc A, Schleich W (1987) Delayed choice experiments in quantum interference. Phys Rev A 35(6): 2532–2541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holbrook MB, Moore WL, Winer RS (1982) Constructing joint spaces from pick-any data: a new tool for consumer analysis. J consumer Res 9(1): 99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krantz DH, Tversky A (1971) Conjoint measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology. Psychol Rev 78(2): 151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lancaster K (1971) Consumer demand a new approach. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Li CZ, Mattsson L (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 28(2): 256–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Louviere JJ (1988) Analyzing decision making: metric conjoint analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  50. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Louviere JJ, Flynn T, Carson RT (2010) Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model 3(3): 57–72Google Scholar
  52. Marley AAJ, Flynn T, Louviere JJ (2008) Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol 52(5): 281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ (2005) Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 49(6): 464–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. McFadden D, Train KE, Tye WB (1977) An application of diagnostic tests for the independence of irrelevant alternatives property of the multionomial logit model. Transp Res Rec 637: 39–45Google Scholar
  56. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1981) An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvement. Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC (1980) Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res 28(1): 206–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C (1974) Bidding games for the valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. J Environ Econ Manag 1(2): 132–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ready R, Fisher A, Guignet D, Stedman R, Wang J (2006) A pilot test of a new stated preference valuation method: Continuous attribute-based stated choice. Ecol Econ 59(3): 247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ready RC, Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J Environ Econ Manag 29(2): 181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ (2010) Stated choice experimental design theory: the who, the what and the why. Paper presented at the Sawtooth conference on the use of conjoint analysis in health care, Newport Beach, CAGoogle Scholar
  63. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Hensher DA, Collins AT (2008) Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp Res B Methodol 42(4): 395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rosen S (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit prices: product differentiation. J Political Econ 82(1): 34–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Breffle WS (1996) A test for payment card biases. J Environ Econ Manag 31(2): 178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Samples KC, Hollyer JR (1989) Volunteer time as a compensation vehicle in contingent valuation studies of endangered species. In: W-133 benefits and costs in natural resources planning, Western Regional Research Publication Interim ReportGoogle Scholar
  67. Shyamsundar P, Kramer RA (1996) Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. J Environ Econ Manag 31(2): 129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith VK (2004) Fifty Years of contingent valuation. International yearbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, CheltenhenGoogle Scholar
  69. Strauss RP, Hughes GD (1976) A new approach to the demand for public goods. J Public Econ 6(3): 191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Street D, Burgess L (2007) The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 5(4): 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL (1972) A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 7(2):118–133. Contingent weighting in judgment and choiceGoogle Scholar
  73. Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D (1990) The causes of preference reversals. Am Econ Rev 80(1): 204–217Google Scholar
  74. US Environmental Protection Agency (1994) President Clinton’s clean water initiative: analysis of benefits and costs. EPA 800-R-94-002 (NTIS Document No. PB94-154101). Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  75. Varian H (1992) Microeconomic analysis. 3rd edn. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. Wang H (1997) Treatment of “Don’t Know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manag 32(2): 219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Welsh M, Poe G (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparison to multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ 36(2): 170–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Whittington D, Smith VK, Okorafor A, Okore A, Liu JL, McPail A (1992) Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. J Environ Econ Manag 22(3): 205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wittink DR, Cattin P (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. J Mark Res 53(3): 91–96Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Centre for the Study of ChoiceUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations