Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 401–417 | Cite as

Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments

  • Danny CampbellEmail author
  • W. George Hutchinson
  • Riccardo Scarpa


Data from a discrete choice experiment on improvements of rural landscape attributes are used to investigate the implications of discontinuous preferences on willingness to pay estimates. Using a multinomial error component logit model, we explore differences in scale and unexplained variance between respondents with discontinuous and continuous preferences and condition taste intensities on whether or not each attribute was considered by the respondent during the evaluation of alternatives. Results suggest that significant improvements in model performance can be achieved when discontinuous preferences are accommodated in the econometric specification, and that the magnitude and robustness of the willingness to pay estimates are sensitive to discontinuous preferences.


Discontinuous preferences Discrete choice experiments Multinomial error component logit model Rural environmental landscapes Willingness to pay 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alpízar F, Carlsson F and Martinsson P (2001). Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8: 83–109 Google Scholar
  2. Bhat CR (2001). Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transport Res Part B 35: 677–693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierlaire M (2003) BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Presented at the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, AsconaGoogle Scholar
  4. Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Louviere JJ, Morrison MD and Rolfe JC (2002). Attribute causality in environmental choice modelling. Environ Resour Econ 23: 167–186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breffle WS and Rowe RD (2002). Comparing choice question formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs. Land Econ 78: 298–314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownstone D and Train KE (1999). Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J Econom 89: 109–129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsson F and Martinsson P (2001). Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?. J Environ Econ Manage 41: 179–192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell D (2007). Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random effects models. J Agric Econ 58: 467–483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell D, Hutchinson WG and Scarpa R (2008). Using mixed logit models to derive individual-specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland. In: Birol, E and Koundouri, P (eds) Choice experiments informing European environmental policy, pp 58–81. Edward-Elgar, Cheltenham Google Scholar
  10. Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R (forthcoming) Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ Plan AGoogle Scholar
  11. Caussade S, Ortúzar JD, Rizzi LI and Hensher DA (2005). Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transport Res Part B 39: 621–640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dellaert BGC, Brazell JD and Louviere JJ (1999). The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency. Market Lett 10: 139–147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeShazo JR and Fermo G (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manage 44: 123–143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrini S and Scarpa R (2007). Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manage 53: 342–363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelso BR and Peterson JM (2005). The influence on the demand for environmental recreation: incorporating lexicographic preferences. Ecol Econ 53: 35–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gowdy JM and Mayumi K (2001). Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 39: 223–237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haaijer R, Kamakura W and Wedel M (2001). The ‘no-choice’ alternative in conjoint choice experiments. Int J Market Res 43: 93–106 Google Scholar
  18. Heiner RA (1983). The origin of predictable behavior. Am Econ Rev 73: 560–595 Google Scholar
  19. Hensher DA (2006a). How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. J Appl Econom 21: 861–878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hensher DA (2006b). Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assment. Environ Resour Econ 34: 7–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hensher DA (in press) Joint estimation of process and outcome in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. J Transport Econ PolicyGoogle Scholar
  22. Hensher DA and Bradley M (1993). Using stated response data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models. Market Lett 4: 139–152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hensher DA, Rose JM and Bertoia T (2007). The implications on willingness to pay of a stochastic treatment of attribute processing in stated choice studies. Transport Res Part E 43: 73–89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hensher DA, Rose JM and Greene WH (2005). The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32: 203–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herriges JA and Phaneuf D (2002). Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated nested logit models of recreation demand. Am J Agric Econ 84: 1076–1090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kontoleon A and 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 Agric Policy Resour 5: 1–43 Google Scholar
  27. Lancaster KJ (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74: 132–157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lancsar E and Louviere JJ (2006). Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Econ 15: 797–811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M and Li CZ (2003). Non-market benefits of forest conservation in sourthern Finland. Environ Sci Policy 6: 195–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lockwood M (1996). Non-compensatory preference structures in non-market valuation of natural area policy. Aust J Agric Econ 40: 73–87 Google Scholar
  31. Lockwood M (1999). Preference structures, property rights and paired comparisons. Environ Resour Econ 13: 107–122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Louviere JJ and Hensher DA (1982). Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling. Transport Res Rec 890: 11–17 Google Scholar
  33. Louviere JJ and Woodworth G (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Market Res 20: 350–357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA and Swait J (2000). Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  35. Luce MF, Payne JW and Bettman JR (2000). Coping with unfavorable attribute values in choice. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 81: 274–299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McIntosh E and Ryan M (2002). Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences. J Econ Psychol 23: 367–382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Payne JW, Bettman JR and Johnson EJ (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  38. Puckett SM, Hensher DA (2008) The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders under variable road user charges. Transport Res Part E 44:379–395Google Scholar
  39. Rekola M (2003). Lexicographic preferences in contingent valuation: a theoretical framework with illustrations. Land Econ 79: 277–291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenberger RS, Peterson GL, Clarke A and Brown TC (2003). Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics. Ecol Econ 44: 63–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sælensminde K (2001). Inconsistent choices in stated choice data: use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases. Transportation 28: 269–296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sælensminde K (2002). The impact of choice inconsistencies in stated choice studies. Environ Resour Econ 23: 403–420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sælensminde K (2006). Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies. Ecol Econ 59: 331–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Samuelson W and Zeckhauser R (1988). Status-quo bias in decision-making. J Risk Uncertain 24: 7–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sándor Z and Wedel M (2001). Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers’ prior beliefs. J Market Res 38: 430–444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scarpa R, Ferrini S and Willis KG (2005). Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. In: Scarpa, R and Alberini, A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, pp 247–273. Springer Publisher, Dordrecht CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scarpa R, Campbell D and Hutchinson WG (2007a). Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents’ rationality in a choice experiment study. Land Econ 83: 617–634 Google Scholar
  48. Scarpa R, Willis KG and Acutt M (2007b). Valuing externalities from water supply: status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. J Environ Plan Manage 50: 449–466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott A (2002). Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. J Econ Psychol 23: 383–398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spash CL (2000). Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation. Ecol Econ 34: 195–215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spash CL and Hanley N (1995). Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol Econ 12: 191–208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Swait J and Louviere JJ (1993). The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Market Res 30: 305–314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sugden R (2005). Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environ Res Econ 32: 1–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Train KE (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danny Campbell
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. George Hutchinson
    • 1
  • Riccardo Scarpa
    • 2
  1. 1.Gibson Institute for Land, Food and EnvironmentQueen’s UniversityBelfastNorthern Ireland, UK
  2. 2.Economics Department, Waikato Management SchoolUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations