Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new test procedure revealing mutuallyinconsistent choices has been developed andapplied to Stated Choice data. Our analysisshows that inconsistent choices commonly occurin several Stated Choice tasks. An applicationof the test to the Norwegian Value of Timestudy data shows that failing to excludeinconsistent choices resulted in asubstantially higher Value of time. Theinconsistent choices were made by less educatedparticipants. As the tasks were undertaken inthe easy context of choosing travelalternatives with three attributes,practitioners of more complex and cognitivedemanding designs should be particularilyconcerned with these results.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994), ‘Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 271–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz, W., J. Swait, P. Boxall, J. Louviere and M. Williams (1997), ‘Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32, 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz, W. L., P. Boxall, M. Williams and J. Louviere (1998), ‘Stated Preference Approaches to Measuring Passive use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1), 64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schuman (1993), ‘Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation’, Federal Register, January 15, 58(10), 4601–4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, J. J. (1994), Reflections on Stated Preferences: Theory and Practice. Paper presented on Seventh International Conference on Travel Behaviour, 13–16 June. Santiago, Chile.

  • Ben-Akiva, M. and S. R. Lerman (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis. The MIT Press.

  • Ben-Akiva, M. and T. Morikawa (1990), Estimation of Travel Demand Models from Multiple Data Sources. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Yokohama.

  • Bhat, C. R. (1995), ‘A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value Model of Intercity Travel Mode Choice’, Transportation Research B 29(6), 471–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P. C., W. L. Adamowicz, J. Swait, M. Williams and J. Louviere (1996), ‘A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Valuation’, Ecological Economics 18(3), 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P. C., W. L. Adamowicz and T. Tomasi (1996), ‘A Nonparametric Test of the Traditional Travel Cost Model’, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 44, 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., F. R. Johnson, D. W. McCollum, W. H. Desvousges, R. W. Dunford and S. P. Hudson (1996), ‘Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses’, Land Economics 72(3), 381–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., H. F. MacDonald, H. Cheng and D. W. McCollum (1998), ‘Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions’, Land Economics 74(1), 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, M. and A. Daly (1992), Estimation of Logit Choice Models Using Mixed Stated Preference and Revealed Preference Information. Paper presented at the 6th international Conference on Travel Behaviour, Quebec.

  • Bradley, M. and A. Daly (1994), ‘Use of the Logit Scaling Approach to Test for Rank-Order and Fatigue Effects in Stated Preference Data’, Transportation 21(2), 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, J. and C. L. Kling (2000), ‘Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare Measures: a New Tool for Nonmarket Valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39, 145–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, A. J. (1992), ALOGIT 3.2. User’s Guide. The Hague: Hague Consuting Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. (1964), ‘Social Selection Based on Multidimensional Choice’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68, 104–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Hausman (1994), ‘Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubourg, W. R., M.W. Jones-Lee and G. Loomes (1997), ‘Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation’, Economica 64, 681–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Preez, J. P. (1994), ‘On Statistical Testing for Intransitivity in Multiattribute Consumer Preference Surveys’, Operations Research 42(3), 550–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, V. and S. Mourato (1997), Are Consumers Rational? Evidence from a Contingent Ranking Experiment. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Tilburg, The Netherlands, 26–28 June.

  • Frykblom, P. (1997), ‘Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34(3), 275–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., K. E. Jacowitz, D. Kahneman and D. McFadden (1998), ‘Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods’, Resource and Energy Economics 20(2), 85–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen, B. and K. Sælensminde (1998), ‘Differences between Willingness-to-Pay Estimates from Open-Ended and Diskrete Choice Contingent Valuation Method: The Effect of Heteroscedasticity’, Land Economics 74(2), 262–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W. M. (1994), ‘Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., R. E. Wright and V. Adamowicz (1998), ‘Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment’, Environmental End Resource Economics 11(3–4), 413–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. A. (1994), ‘Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice’, Transportation 21(2), 1994.

  • Hensher, D. A. and M. Bradley (1993), ‘Using Stated Choice Data to Enrich Revealed Preference Discrete Choice Models’, Marketing Letters 4(2), 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. A., J. Louviere and J. Swait (1997), Combining Sources of Preference Data: The Case of the Lurking ?’s. Working paper 97–8, Institute of Transport Studies, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. A., J. Louviere and J. Swait (1999), ‘Combining Sources of Preference Data’, Journal of Econometrics 89, 197–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. R. and W. H. Desvousges (1997), ‘Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34(1), 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K-S. (1998), Analysing Repeated Measurement Problems in SP Data Modelling. Paper presented at the 8th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR), Antwerp, July 12–17.

  • Layard, R. and S. Glaister (1994), Cost-Benefit Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

  • Manski, C. (1977), ‘The Structure of Random Utility Models’, Theory and Decision 8, 229–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzotta, M. J. and J. J. Opaluch (1995), ‘Decision Making When Choices are Complex: A Test of Heiner’s Hypothesis’, Land Economics 71(4), 500–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1973), ‘Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior’, in P. Zaremmbka, ed., Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neill, H. R. (1995), ‘The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Emperical Observations’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 393–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • OrtÚzar, J. de D., D. A. Roncagliolo and U. C. Velarde (1997), Interactions and independence in Stated Preference Modelling. Proceedings from the 25th European Transport Forum, vol. P415, pp. 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouwersloot, H. and P. Rietveld (1996), ‘Stated Choice Experiments with Repeated Observations’, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (May), 203–212.

  • Portney, P. R. (1994), ‘The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramjerdi, F. L. Rand, I. A. F. Sætermo and K. Sælensminde (1997), The Norwegian Value of Time Study. Report no. 379/1997, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A. (1997), ‘The NOAA Panel Report: A Beginning or the End of an Era?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(5), 1489–1494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, B., K. J. Boyle and M. F. Teisl (1996), ‘Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(2), 145–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C. L. and N. Hanley (1995), ‘Preferences, Information and Biodiversity Preservation’, Ecological Economics 12, 191–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, T. H., J. Echevarria, R. J. Glass, T. Hager and T. A. More (1991), ‘Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What do CVM Estimates Really Show?’, Land Economics 67(4), 390–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J. (2001), ‘A Non-Compensatory Choice Model Incorporating Attribute Cutoffs’, Transportation Research Part B 35, 903–928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J. and W. Adamowicz (1996), The Effect of Choice Environment and Task Demands on Consumer Behavior: Discriminating between Contribution and Confusion. Working Paper, Dept. of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, June.

  • Swait, J. and W. Adamowicz (1999), Choice Task Complexity and Decision Strategy Selection. Working paper, Dept. of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J. and A. Bernardino (2000), ‘Distinguishing Taste Variation from Error Structure in Discrete Choice Data’, Transportation Research Part B 34, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sælensminde, K. (1995), Pakkeeffekter og budsjettpåminnelse - Hvordan påvirkes verdsettingen av redusert reisetid i den norske tidsverdistudien? (Effects of Packaging and a Budget Reminder on the Valuation av Reduced Travel Time). Working paper TP/0934/1995, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo (in Norwegian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sælensminde, K. (1998), The Impact of Choice inconsistencies on the Valuation of Travel Time in Stated Choice Studies. Paper presented at the First World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Venice June 25–27.

  • Sælensminde, K. (1999), ‘Stated Choice Valuation of Urban Traffic Pollution’, Transportation Research Part D 4, 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sælensminde, K. (2001), ‘Inconsistent Choices in Stated Choice Data. Use of the Logit Scaling Approach to Handle Resulting Variance Increases’, Transportation 28, 269–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sælensminde, K. and F. Hammer (1994), Verdsetting av miljøgoder ved bruk av samvalganalyse (Assessing Environmental Benefits by Means of Conjoint Analysis). TØI-rapport no. 251/1994, Institute of transport economics, Oslo (in Norwegian, with English summary).

    Google Scholar 

  • Toner, J. P., S. D. Clark, S. M. Grant-Muller and A. S. Fowkes (1998), Anything You Can Do, We Can Do Better: A Provocative Introduction to a New Approach to Stated Preference Design. Paper presented at the 8th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR), Antwerp, July 12–17.

  • Tversky, A. (1972), ‘Elimination-by-Aspects: A Theory of Choice’, Psychology Review 79, 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H. R. (1982), ‘The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis’, Econometrica 50(4), 945–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H. R. (1983), ‘Nonparametric Tests of Consumer Behavior’, Review of Economic Studies 50, 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widlert, S. (1994), Stated Preference Studies - The Design Affects the Results. Paper presented on Seventh International Conference on Travel Behaviour, 13–16 June. Santiago, Chile.

  • Widlert, S., G. Lind, E. Lindqvist, J. Lindqvist and U. Lindstedt (1993), Värdering av miljöfaktorer, Transek. Stockholm.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Transport Economics, Box 6110, Etterstad, N-0602, Oslo, Norway

    Kjartan Sælensminde

Authors
  1. Kjartan Sælensminde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sælensminde, K. The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies. Environmental and Resource Economics 23, 403–420 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021358826808

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021358826808

Search

Navigation