Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 247–264 | Cite as

Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies

  • Kevin J. Boyle
  • Semra Özdemir


The application of attribute-based choice questions is well established in the marketing literature, but there are unique aspects of the design that warrant investigation to assess their validity for economic welfare estimation. Three design issues are investigated in this paper: (1) the placement of the monetary stimulus (policy cost to respondents) in the sequence of attributes, (2) the number of policy alternatives respondents are asked to consider in choice questions (two versus three), and (3) the inclusion, versus exclusion, of a status-quo alternative in choice questions. The data used to implement these investigations are from a survey designed to estimate the value Maine residents place on a farmland conservation easement program. Tests of convergent validity indicate that the placement of the monetary stimulus, first versus last in the list of attributes, did not affect estimates of preference parameters, significant differences between questions with three versus two alternatives did occur, and the inclusion/exclusion of a status-quo alternative did not affect preference parameters.


Non-market valuation Stated prederences Attribute-based valuation Choice experiments Convergent validity Monetary incentive Incentive compatibility Status-quo option Famland protection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acito F (1977) An investigation of some data collection issue in conjoint management. J Mark Res 16: 26–31Google Scholar
  2. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1): 64–75. doi: 10.2307/3180269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beasley SD, Workman WG, Williams NA (1986) Estimating amenity values of urban fringe farmland: a contingent valuation approach: note. Growth change 17(4): 70–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2257.1986.tb00067.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergstrom JC, Dillman BL, Stoll JR (1985) Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. South J Agric Econ 17(1): 139–150Google Scholar
  6. Boxall P, Swait J, Adamowicz W, Williams M, Louviere J (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 18(3): 243–253. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyle KJ, Johnson FR, McCollum DW (1997) Anchoring and adjustment in single-bounded, contingent-valuation questions. Am J Agric Econ 79(5): 1495–1500. doi: 10.2307/1244370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breffle WS, Rowe RD (2002) Comparing choice questions formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs. Land Econ 78: 298–314. doi: 10.2307/3147275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breffle WS, Morey ER, Rowe RD, Waldman DM (2006) Combining stated-choice questions with observed behavior to value NRDA compensable damages: Green Bay, PCBs and fish consumption advisories. In: Kahn J, Alberini A (eds) The handbook of contingent valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd,Google Scholar
  10. Bumpass LL (1997) The measurement of public opinion on abortion: the effects of survey design. Fam Plann Perspect 29(4): 177–180. doi: 10.2307/2953382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manage 41(2): 179–192. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2000.1138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carmines EG, Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (CA)Google Scholar
  13. Carson RT, Groves T (2000) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37: 181–210. doi: 10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dhar R (1997) Consumer preference for a no-choice option. J Consum Res 24(September): 215–231. doi: 10.1086/209506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manage 44: 123–143. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrar S, Ryan M (1999) Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ Lett 8:75–79. doi :10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199902)8:1<75::AID-HEC400>3.0.CO;2-5Google Scholar
  17. Feldman JM, Lynch JG Jr (1988) Self generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, and behavior. J Appl Psychol 73(3): 421–435. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foster V, Mourato S (1999) Elicitation format and part-whole bias: do contingent valuation and contingent ranking give the same result? CSERGE working paper GEC 99-17. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene WH (2000) Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall Inc., New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  20. Haaijer R, Kamakura W, Wedel M (2001) The no-choice alternative in conjoint choice experiments. Int J Market Res 43(1): 93–106Google Scholar
  21. Halstead JM (1984) Measuring the nonmarket value of Massachusetts agricultural land: a case study. J Northeastern Agric Econ Counc 13(1): 12–19Google Scholar
  22. Halvorsen B (1996) Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys. Environ Resour Econ 8(4): 485–499. doi: 10.1007/BF00357416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52: 1219–1240. doi: 10.2307/1910997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holmes T, Adamowicz V (2003) Attribute-based methods. In: Champ P, Boyle KJ, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes T, Boyle K (2005) Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Econ 81: 114–126Google Scholar
  26. Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance and efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 33: 307–317. doi: 10.2307/3152127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Irwin E (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ 78(4): 465–480. doi: 10.2307/3146847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH (2000) Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 9: 295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kjaer T, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D, Hart-Hansen K (2006) Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?. Health Econ 15(11): 1217–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krieger DJ (1999) Saving open spaces: public support for farmland protection. WP99-1, Center for Agriculture and the Environment, DeKalb, ILGoogle Scholar
  31. Krosnick JA, Alwin DF (1987) An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opin Q 51(2): 201–219. doi: 10.1086/269029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lancsar E, Louviere J (2006) “Deleting irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Econ 15: 797–811. doi: 10.1002/hec.1104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values. Environ Resour Econ 20(3): 241–254. doi: 10.1023/A:1012791822804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Little J, Berrens R (2004) Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ Bull 14(6): 1–13Google Scholar
  35. Lloyd AJ (2002) Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate. Health Econ 11: 1–10. doi: 10.1002/hec.667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Louviere JJ (1991) Experimental choice analysis: introduction and overview. J Bus Res 23: 291–297. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(91)90015-P CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Louviere JJ, Fox M, Moore W (1993) Cross-task validity comparisons of stated preference choice models. Mark Lett 4(3): 205–213. doi: 10.1007/BF00999227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Louviere JJ, Meyer RJ, Bunch DS et al (1999) Combining sources of preference data for modeling complex decision processes. Mark Lett 10(3): 187–204. doi: 10.1023/A:1008050215270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Louviere JJ, Hensher D, Swait J (2001) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications in marketing, transportation and environmental valuation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Louviere JJ, Street D, Carson R et al (2002) Dissecting the random component of utility. Mark Lett 13(3): 177–193. doi: 10.1023/A:1020258402210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lusk JL, Norwood FB (2005) Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates. Am J Agric Econ 87(3): 771–785. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00761.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Magat WA, Viscusi WK, Huber J (1988) Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 15: 395–411. doi: 10.1016/0095-0696(88)90034-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30(3): 313–325. doi: 10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paterson RW, Boyle KJ, Ahearn M, Alberini A, Bergstrom J, Libby L et al (2001) Improved information in support of a national strategy for open land policies: summary of focus group findings summer, 2000, Staff Paper, The University of MaineGoogle Scholar
  46. Paterson RW, Boyle KJ, Ahearn M, Alberini A, Bergstrom J, Libby L et al (2005) Public preferences for farmland attributes in conservation easement programs. In: Goetz SJ, Shortle JS, Bergstrom JC (eds) Chapter 12 in land use problems and conflicts: causes, consequences and solutions. Routledge, Taylor Francis Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenberger RS, Walsh RG (1997) Nonmarket value of western valley ranchland using contingent valuation. J Agric Resour Econ 22(2): 296–309Google Scholar
  48. Saelensminde K (2002) The impact of choice inconsistency in stated choice studies. Environ Resour Econ 23: 403–420. doi: 10.1023/A:1021358826808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott A, Vick S (1999) Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scott J Polit Econ 46: 111–134. doi: 10.1111/1467-9485.00124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simmons CJ, Bickart BA, Lynch JG Jr (1993) Capturing and creating public opinion in survey research. J Consum Res 20(2): 316–329. doi: 10.1086/209352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stevens TH, Belkner R, Dennis D, Kittredge D, Willis C (2000) Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecol Econ 32: 63–74. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00071-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stewart JM, O’Shea E, Donaldson C, Shackley P (2002) Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care. J Health Econ 21(4): 585–599. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00003-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swait J, Adamowicz W (2001) The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. J Consum Res 28(1): 135–148. doi: 10.1086/321952 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res 30: 305–313. doi: 10.2307/3172883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taebel DA (1975) The effect of ballot position on electoral success. Am J Pol Sci 19(3): 519–526. doi: 10.2307/2110542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Takatsuka Y, Kahn J, Stewart S (2002) Choice model and contingent valuation estimates of the value of ecosystem attributes, paper presented at 72nd annual meeting of the southern economic association, New Orleans, LA, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  57. Tourangeau R, Rasinski KA (1988) Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychol Bull 103(3): 299–314. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin J. Boyle
    • 1
  • Semra Özdemir
    • 2
  1. 1.Virginia Tech, BlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public HealthUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations