Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 60, Issue 3, pp 327–347 | Cite as

Intra-respondent Heterogeneity in a Stated Choice Survey on Wetland Conservation in Belarus: First Steps Towards Creating a Link with Uncertainty in Contingent Valuation



Applications of discrete choice models in environmental valuation increasingly use a random coefficient specification, such as mixed logit, to represent taste heterogeneity. The majority of applications rely on data containing multiple observations for each respondent, where a common assumption is that tastes stay constant across choices for the same respondent. We question this assumption and make use of a model developed in the transport field which allows tastes to vary over choices for each consumer in addition to variation across consumers. An empirical analysis making use of a stated choice dataset for wetland conservation in Belarus shows that superior performance is obtained by allowing jointly for the two types of heterogeneity and that recovery of these intra-respondent variations is not possible using standard approaches, such as allowing for scale heterogeneity across tasks. We show also that intra-respondent heterogeneity can be especially high for attributes which respondents are unfamiliar with, and that a failure to account for it can substantially affect welfare estimates. We interpret this as an indication that this heterogeneity relates primarily to uncertainty. Finally, we offer initial insights into the relationship between intra-respondent heterogeneity and findings on uncertainty in a contingent valuation context.


Stated preference data Random taste heterogeneity Mixed logit  Intra-respondent heterogeneity Wetland conservation 



The authors are grateful for the comments of Thijs Dekker and one anonymous referee which helped to significantly improve the paper. The authors would like to thank Sviataslau Valasiuk for providing the SC and CV data. The work on this paper was supported by the Polish National Science Centre Grant DEC-2012/07/E/HS4/04037.


  1. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams W, Louviere JJ (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring Passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agr Econ 80:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2003) Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q J Econ 118(1):73–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2006) Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. J Econ Behav Organ 60(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baerenklau Kenneth A, Bill Provencher (2005) Static modeling of dynamic recreation behavior: implications for prediction and welfare estimation. J Environ Econ Manag 50(3):617–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett C, Stevens TH, Willis C (1996) Comparison of CV and conjoint analysis in groundwater valuation. In: Herriges J (Compiler), Ninth Interim Report, W-133 Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IAGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Jones AP, Kerr GN (2001) Bound and path effects in multiple-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 23(3):191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman ID, Burgess G (2008) Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manag 55:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhat CR, Castelar S (2002) A unified mixed logit framework for modelling revealed and stated preferences: formulation and application to congestion pricing analysis in the San Francisco Bay area. Transp Res Part B 36(7):593–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhat CR, Sardesai R (2006) The impact of stop-making and travel time reliability on commute mode choice. Transp Res Part B 40(9):709–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradley M, Daly A (1994) Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data. Transportation 21(2):167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brouwer R, Dekker T, Rolfe J, Windle J (2010) Choice Certainty and Consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 46(1):93–109Google Scholar
  12. Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manag 27:218–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen HZ, Cosslett SR (1998) Environmental quality preference and benefit estimation in multinomial probit models: a simulation approach. Am J Agric Econ 80(3):512–520Google Scholar
  14. Cherchi E, Cirillo C, Ortúzar J de D (2009) A mixed logit mode choice model for panel data: accounting for different correlation over time periods. Paper presented at the international choice modelling conference, HarrogateGoogle Scholar
  15. Daly AJ, Hess S (2011) Simple approaches for random utility modelling with panel data. Paper presented at the 90th annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Daly AJ, Hess S, Train KE (2012) Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficients models. Transportation 39(1):19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dekker T (2012) Preference uncertainty in stated choice experiments, doctoral thesisGoogle Scholar
  18. Dekker T, Hess S, Brouwer R, Hofkes H (2013) Implicitly or explicitly uncertain? In: International choice modelling conference, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  19. Doornik JA (2001) Ox: an object-oriented matrix language. Timberlake Consultants Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Ellingson L, Boman M, Norman J, Mattson L (2009) Valuation uncertainty and maximum willingness to pay: a nonparametric comparison between elicitation formats. Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, AlnarpGoogle Scholar
  21. Giergiczny M, Hess S, Dekker T, Chintakayala PK (2013) Testing the consistency (or lack thereof) between choices in best-worst surveys. Paper presented at the third international choice modelling conference, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  22. Håkansson C (2008) A new valuation question: analysis of and insights from interval open ended data in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 39(2):175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanemann W (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiment with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanley N, Wright R, Adamowicz W (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11:413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanley N, Adamowicz W, Wright RE (2005) Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test. Resour Energy Econ 27(3):227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanley N, Kriström B, Shogren JF (2009) Coherent arbitrariness: on value uncertainty for environmental goods. Land Econ 85:41–50Google Scholar
  27. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30(2):133–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hensher D, Rose JM, Beck M (2011) Are there specific design elements of choice experiments and types of people that influence choice response certainty? In: 2nd International choice modelling conference, Leeds, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Hess S, Rose JM (2009) Allowing for intra-respondent variations in coefficients estimated on repeated choice data. Transp Res Part B 43(6):708–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hess S, Train KE (2011) Recovery of inter- and intra-personal heterogeneity using mixed logit models. Transp Res Part B 45(7):973–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hess S, Train KE, Polak JW (2006) On the use of a modified latin hypercube sampling (MLHS) approach in the estimation of a mixed logit model for vehicle choice. Transp Res Part B 40(2):147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hess S, Hensher D, Daly AJ (2012) Not bored yet—revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments. Transp Res Part A 46(3):626–644Google Scholar
  33. Holmes TP, Boyle KJ (2005) Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential. Attrib Based Stated Preference Valuat Quest Land Econ 81(1):114–126Google Scholar
  34. Hoyos D (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ 69:2372–2381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson R, Bregenzer N (1990) Contingent valuation question formats: dichotomous choice versus open–ended responses. In: Johnson R, Johnson G (eds) Economic valuation of natural resources: issues, theory, and applications. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp 193–204Google Scholar
  36. Kobayashi M, Moeltner K, Rollins K (2012) Latent thresholds analysis of choice data under value uncertainty. Am J Agric Econ 94(1):189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li C-H, Mattsson L (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 28(2):256–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lundhede TH, Olsen SB, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2009) Handling respondent uncertainty in choice experiments: evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modeling of uncertainty. J Choice Model 2(2): 118–147Google Scholar
  39. Mahieu PA, Riera P, Giergiczny M (2012) The influence of cheap talk on willingness to pay range. Some empirical evidence. J Environ Plan Manag 55(6):753–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agric Econ 76:689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econom 15:447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moeltner K, Layton D (2002) A censored random coefficients model for pooled survey data with application to the estimation of power outage costs. Rev Econ Stat 84(3):552–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Norwood FB (2005) Can calibration reconcile stated and observed preferences? J Agric Appl Econ 37(1): 237–248Google Scholar
  44. Plott CR (1996) Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K, Colombatto E, Perleman M, Schmidt C (eds) Rational foundations of economic behavior. Macmillan and NY: St. Martin’s, London, pp 225–250Google Scholar
  45. Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 80(4):647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rose JM (2014) Interpreting discrete choice models based on best-worst data: a matter of framing. Paper presented at the 93rd annual meeting of the transportation research boardGoogle Scholar
  47. Schulze W, McClelland G, Waldman D, Lazo J (1996) Sources of bias in contingent valuation. In: Bjornstad D, Kahn J (eds) The contingent valuation of environmental resources. Edward Elger, Cheltenham, pp 97–116Google Scholar
  48. Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Am Psychol 50(5):364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stevens TH, Belkner R, Dennis D, Kittredge D, Willis C (2000) Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management’. Ecol Econ 32:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Street DJ, Burgess L (2007) The construction of optimal stated choice experiments, theory and methods. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Street DJ, Burgess L, Louviere JJ (2005) Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int J Res Market 22(4):459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valasiuk S, Giergiczny M, Klimkowska A, \(\dot{Z}\)ylicz T (2013) Are people in transitional economies willing to pay for ecosystem services and biodiversity? A choice experiment for wetland protection—the Case of Zvaniec Fen Mire in Belarus. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  54. Walsh R, Johnson D, McKean J (1992) Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation demand studies: 1968–1988. Water Resour Res 28:707–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Yañez MF, Cherchi E, Heydecker BG, Ortúzar J de D (2011) On the treatment of repeated observations in panel data: efficiency of mixed logit parameter estimates. Netw Sp Econ 11(3):393–418Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Economic SciencesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations