Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the elicitation of perceived status quo information as a tool to increase survey engagement and enhance accuracy of preference estimates in discrete choice experiments

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Economics and Policy Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent advancements in choice modelling practice include the embedding of individual heterogeneity in the modelling procedure by matching subjective perceptions about the status quo with experimentally designed choice cards. Beyond potentially mitigating bias in welfare estimations, we argue that the process of eliciting status quo information increases the engagement of respondents with the survey, rendering them more prepared to receive context-specific information and conduct hypothetical trade-offs. Moreover, it enables the researcher to utilise the perceived status quo information to provide choice sets that are specific to each respondent. To assess the gains of the practice, we ran a choice experiment survey with two separate samples that followed distinct preference elicitation procedures, the main difference being whether respondents were asked or not to state their perceived status quo prior to or following the choice task. By conducting independent hypothesis testing for each sample, we found that respondents who were asked to state their perceptions prior to the choice task made likely better use of the provided information while their decision-making was less likely to be governed by an anti-status quo effect. On the other hand, respondents who did not state their perceptions prior to the choice task made inconsistent choices, particularly by opting for scenarios inferior to their perceived status quo.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

References

  • Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. and Swait, J., 1998. Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods.

  • Ahtiainen H, Pouta E, Artell J (2015) Modelling asymmetric preferences for water quality in choice experiments with individual-specific status quo alternatives. Water Res Econ 12:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Artell J, Ahtiainen H, Pouta E (2013) Subjective vs. objective measures in the valuation of water quality. J Environ Manage 130:288–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal P, Kim EJ, Ozdemir S (2024) Discrete choice experiments with eye-tracking: how far we have come and ways forward. J Choice Model 51:100478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreiro-Hurle J, Espinosa-Goded M, Martínez-Paz JM, Perni A (2018) Choosing not to choose: a meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments. Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales 18(1):79–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton DN, Bergland O (2010) Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an ‘individual status quo’modelling of farm specific water scarcity. Environ Dev Econ 15(3):321–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Day BH, Jones AP, Jude S (2009) Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Manag 58(1):106–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom JC, Stoll JR, Randall A (1990) The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions. Am J Agr Econ 72(3):614–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomquist GC, Whitehead JC (1998) Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Res Energy Econ 20(2):179–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Moon A (2009) Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Austr J Agric Res Econ 53(4):503–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brahic E, Rambonilaza T (2015) The impact of information on public preferences for forest biodiversity preservation: a split-sample test with choice experiment method 1. Revue D’économie Politique 2:253–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Martin-Ortega J, Berbel J (2010) Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ 86(3):552–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Bliem M, Getzner M, Kerekes S, Milton S, Palarie T, Szerényi Z, Vadineanu A, Wagtendonk A (2016) Valuation and transferability of the non-market benefits of river restoration in the Danube river basin using a choice experiment. Ecol Eng 87:20–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownstone D, Train K (1998) Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J Economet 89(1–2):109–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB (2012) The first time is the hardest: a test of ordering effects in choice experiments. J Choice Model 5(2):19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caussade S, de Dios Ortúzar J, Rizzi LI, Hensher DA (2005) Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transport Res Part b: Method 39(7):621–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowski M, Hanley N, LaRiviere J (2016) Controlling for the effects of information in a public goods discrete choice model. Environ Resource Econ 63:523–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez-Torreiro M, Soliño M (2011) Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas. Ecol Econ 70(12):2523–2531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenk K (2011) Using local knowledge to model asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay for environmental services. J Environ Manage 92(3):531–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright RE, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006) Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J Environ Manage 78(2):183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasselström L, Håkansson C (2014) Detailed vs fuzzy information in non-market valuation studies: the role of familiarity. J Environ Plan Manage 57(1):123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (2010) January. Attribute processing, heuristics and preference construction in choice analysis. In Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-art and The State-of-practice: Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference (pp. 35–69). Emerald Group Publishing Limited

  • Hess S, Stathopoulos A (2013) Linking response quality to survey engagement: a combined random scale and latent variable approach. J Choice Modell 7:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess S, Rose JM, Hensher DA (2008) Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models. Transport Res Part e: Logist Transport Rev 44(5):847–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hime S, Bateman IJ, Posen P, Hutchins M, (2009). A transferable water quality ladder for conveying use and ecological information within public surveys (No. 09–01). CSERGE working paper EDM

  • Hoehn JP, Randall A (2002) The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resour Energy Econ 24(1–2):13–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Ryan M, Scarpa R, Tourangeau R (2017) Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 4(2):319–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Kataria M, Bateman I, Christensen T, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Ladenburg J, Levin G, Martinsen L, Nissen C (2012) Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments–A non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. J Environ Manage 94(1):25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontoleon A, Yabe M (2003) Assessing the impacts of alternative ‘opt-out’formats in choice experiment studies: consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food. J Agricult Policy Res 5(1):1–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanz B, Provins A (2015) Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences? J Regul Econ 47:300–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaRiviere J, Czajkowski M, Hanley N, Aanesen M, Falk-Petersen J, Tinch D (2014) The value of familiarity: effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good. J Environ Econ Manag 68(2):376–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liski AH, Koetse MJ, Metzger MJ (2019) Addressing awareness gaps in environmental valuation: choice experiments with citizens in the Inner Forth, Scotland. Reg Environ Change 19:2217–2229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariel P, Hoyos D, Meyerhoff J, Czajkowski M, Dekker T, Glenk K, Jacobsen JB, Liebe U, Olsen SB, Sagebiel J, Thiene M (2021) Environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments: Guidance on design, implementation and data analysis. Springer Nature, p. 129

  • Marsh D, Mkwara L, Scarpa R (2011) Do respondents’ perceptions of the status quo matter in non-market valuation with choice experiments? An application to New Zealand freshwater streams. Sustainability 3(9):1593–1615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Ortega J, Berbel J (2010) Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the Water Framework Directive. Sci Total Environ 408(19):3990–3997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masiero L, Hensher DA (2010) Analyzing loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity in a freight transport stated choice experiment. Transport Res Part a: Policy Pract 44(5):349–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews Y, Scarpa R, Marsh D (2017) Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: a case study about coastal erosion management. J Environ Econ Manag 81:193–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe PJ, Baker W, Andrews K, Atkinson G, Bateman IJ, Butler S, Carson RT, East J, Gueron Y, Sheldon R, Train K (2012) An assessment of the nonmarket benefits of the Water Framework Directive for households in England and Wales. Water Resource Res 48(3):3526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2009) Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ 85(3):515–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff J, Boeri M, Hartje V (2014) The value of water quality improvements in the region Berlin-Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency. Water Resources and Economics 5:49–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff J, Oehlmann M, Weller P (2015) The influence of design dimensions on stated choices in an environmental context. Environ Resource Econ 61:385–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oehlmann M, Meyerhoff J, Mariel P, Weller P (2017) Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag 81:59–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Payne JW, Bettman JR, Schkade DA, Schwarz N, Gregory R, (2000). Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Elicitation of preferences, pp. 243–275.

  • Rolfe J, Bennett J (2009) The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments. Ecol Econ 68(4):1140–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1:7–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa R, Ferrini S, Willis K, (2005). Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, pp. 247–273.

  • Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Welling M, Sagebiel J, Rommel J (2023) Information processing in stated preference surveys: a case study on urban gardens. J Environ Econ Manag 119:102798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zawojska E, Welling M, Sagebiel J (2023) Effects of varying the location of perceived consequentiality elicitation in a discrete choice experiment survey. Land Econ 100:233–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Adamowicz WL (2011) Unraveling the choice format effect: a context-dependent random utility model. Land Econ 87(4):730–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Northern Ireland as part of the 16/2/07 (48116) project.

Funding

Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, UK Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), 18 Newforge Lane, Belfast, UK

    Marios Zachariou, Diane Burgess, Catherine Glass & Graham Finney

Authors
  1. Marios Zachariou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diane Burgess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine Glass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Graham Finney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marios Zachariou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zachariou, M., Burgess, D., Glass, C. et al. Assessing the elicitation of perceived status quo information as a tool to increase survey engagement and enhance accuracy of preference estimates in discrete choice experiments. Environ Econ Policy Stud (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-024-00409-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-024-00409-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation