Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health
Numerous articles dealing with stated preferences are published every year in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health. Hence, it is not easy to find all the relevant articles when performing a benefit transfer, a meta-analysis, or a review of literature. Also, it is not easy to identify trends or common practices in these fields regarding the elicitation method. We have constructed and made available a unique database comprising 1657 choice experiment and/or contingent valuation articles published in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health between 2004 and 2016. We show that the number of choice experiment studies keeps increasing and the single-bounded dichotomous choice format is the most employed question format in contingent valuation studies. We also consider the new nomenclature proposed by Carson and Louviere and we show that the “discrete choice experiment” is more popular than the “matching method,” especially in journals related to agriculture.
KeywordsContingent valuation Choice experiment Matching method Incentive compatibility Meta-analysis Benefit transfer Review of literature
JEL classificationQ18 Q51 I10
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors for constructive comments. We are also grateful to an anonymous referee from FAERE on a previous version of the paper. Finally, we would like to thank Jordan Louviere, Gildas Appéré and Muriel Travers for helpful comments.
We acknowledge financial support by the European Research Council through the consolidator grant 615596-DECISIONS.
- Alberini A, Kahn JR (2009) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing,Google Scholar
- Carson, R. (2012). Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
- Carson, R., & Czajkowski, M. (2014). The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
- Crastes, R., & Mahieu, P.-A. (2014). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: a meta-analysis application exploring the determinants of the time for publication acceptance. Economic Bulletin, 34, 1575–1599.Google Scholar
- Hole, A. R. (2007) Estimating mixed logit models using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata Journal, 7, 388–401.Google Scholar
- Mahieu, P.-A., Crastes, R., Kriström, B., & Riera, P. (2015). Non-market valuation in France. An overview of the research activity. Revue Econ Pol, 125, 171–196.Google Scholar
- Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (2007) Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care vol 11. Springer Science & Business Media,Google Scholar
- Train K, Weeks M (2005) Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Whitehead JC (2011) Contingent valuation versus choice experiment: 1989–2010 Blog posted on June 17, 2011.Google Scholar