Abstract
Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrated that willingness to pay (WTP) techniques can be used to show that cultural resources do generate significant positive externalities or non-market benefits. However, there is great need for a more detailed analysis of the valuation of such goods, both in terms of the specific attributes that make up the good and their value to different population groups. The relatively new choice experiment (CE) or conjoint analysis method is also a type of contingent valuation stated preference technique, but with significant advantages over willingness to pay studies. While conjoint analysis has been used for some time in other branches of economics, it has only recently made its appearance in the cultural economics field. Rather than being asked their willingness to pay for one scenario, respondents in this method are asked to choose between bundles of attributes at different levels that make up the cultural good. Price is usually one of the attributes, which enables the calculation of marginal willingness to pay for each attribute, as compared to the composite value for the whole good obtained with WTP studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abley, J. (2000) Stated preference techniques and consumer decision making: New challenges and old assumptions. [On line] Available: https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream /1826/664/2/SWP0200.pdf
Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:271–292.
Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M. and Louviere, J. (1998) Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1): 64–75.
Alberini, A., Riganti, P. and Longo, A. (2003) Can People Value the Aesthetic and Use Services of Urban Sites? Evidence from a Survey of Belfast Residents. Journal of Cultural Economics 27: 193–213.
Apostolakis, A. and Jaffry, S. (2005) A choice modeling application for Greek heritage attractions. Journal of Travel Research 43:309–319
Apostolakis, A. and Jaffry, S. (2006) The effect of cultural capital on the probability to visit cultural heritage attractions. Paper presented at the 14th Association of Cultural Economics International Conference, Vienna 6–9 July.
Bille, T., Lundhede, T. and Hasler, B. (2006) Economic valuation of protected archaeological artifacts in Great Aamose, Denmark Paper presented at the 14th Association of Cultural Economics International Conference, Vienna 6–9 July.
Boxall, P., Englin, J. and Adamowicz, W. (2003) Valuing aboriginal artifacts: a combined reveal-stated preference approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45:213–230
DeSarbo, W., Lehmann, D. and Hollman, F. (2004) Modeling dynamic effects in repeated-measures experiments involving preference/choice: an illustration involving stated preference analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement 28,3:186–209.
DeShazo, J. R. and Fermo, G. (2002) Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 123–143.
Ding, M., Grewal, R. and Liechty, J. (2005) Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 62:67–82.
Eftec (2002) Valuation of benefits to England and Wales of a revised bathing water quality directive and other beach characteristics using the choice experiment methodology. [On line] Available: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ water/quality/bathing/bw_study4.htm [Accessed 8/07/04].
Eggert, H. and Olsson, B. (2004) Heterogeneous preferences for marine resources. [On line] Available: www.handels.gu.se/epc/archive/00003393/ [Accessed 6/07/04].
Finn, A., McFadyen, S. and Hoskins, C. (2003) Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Journal of Cultural Economics 27:177–192.
Finn, A., McFadyen, S. and Thomas, D. (2006) Use and non-use values of Super-Net enabled broadband content and services. Paper presented at the 14th Association of Cultural Economics International Conference, Vienna 6–9 July.
Garrod, G. and Willis, K. (1999). Economic Valuation of the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Hanley, N., Mourato, S. and Wright, R. (2001) Choice Modeling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15(3): 435–462.
Hanley, N., Adamowicz, W. and Wright, R. (2005) Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test. Resource and Energy Economics 27,3:227–234.
Hensher, D. (2005) The implication of willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32,3:203–222.
Hensher, D. (2006) Revealing difference in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics 34,1:7–44.
Hoehn, J.P. and Randall, A. (1989) Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test. American Economic Review 79,3:544–551.
Jiang, Y., Swallow, S. and McGonagle, P. (2005) Contest-specific benefit transfer using stated choice models: specification and convergent validity for policy analysis Environmental and Resource Economics 31:477–499.
Lancaster, K. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 134–57.
List, J. and Shogren, J. (1998) Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuation in a field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37:193–205.
List, J. and Gallet, C. (2001) What experimental protocol influences disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20:241–254.
Louviere, J. and Hensher, D. (1983) Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event. Journal of Consumer Research 10,3:348–361.
Louviere, J. (2006) What you don’t know might hurt you: some unresolved issues in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 34:173–188.
Mazzanti, M. (2003) Valuing cultural heritage in a multi-attribute framework — microeconomic perspectives and policy implications. Journal of Socio-Economics 32:549–569
Mazzanti, M. (2003) Discrete choice models and valuation experiments. Journal of Economic Studies 30,6:584–604.
Morey, E., Rossmann, K., Chestnut, L. and Ragland, S. (2002) Modeling and Estimating WTP for Reducing Acid Deposition Injuries to Cultural Resources: Using Choice Experiments in a Group Setting to Estimate Passive-Use Values. Valuing Cultural Resources in Navrud, S. and Ready, R. (Eds.) Edward Elgar Publishing.
Marais, L. (2004) Personal communication (Interview) 10/04: Grahamstown.
Morey, E. and Rossmann, K. (2003) Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic Heterogeneity, Random Parameters and Mixture Models. Journal of Cultural Economics 27: 215–229.
NOAA (1993) Arrow, K.J., Solow, R., Leamer, E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register 58,10
Sattler, H., Hartmann, A. and Kroger, S. (2003) Number of tasks in choice-based conjoint analysis. Research paper 013 on Marketing and Retailing, University of Hamburg.
Snowball, J. and Willis, K. (2006a) Estimating the marginal utility of different sections of an arts festival: the case of visitors to the South African National Arts Festival. Leisure Studies 25,1:43–56
Snowball, J. and Willis, K. (2006b) Building cultural capital: transforming the South African National Arts Festival. South African Journal of Economics 74,1:1–14.
Tuan, T. and Navrud, S. (2006) Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: Comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates. Environmental and Resource Economics 35: Dec 7 online publication.
Willis, K. and Garrod, G. (1999) Angling and Recreation Values of Low-Flow Alleviation in Rivers. Journal of Environmental Management 57: 71–83.
Willis, K. G. (2002) Stated Preference and the Estimation of Environmental Values. International Journal of Environmental Studies 59: 635–646.
Willis, K and Kinghorn, N. (2007) Managing an archaeological site: site characteristics, preference heterogeneity, two-factor interactions, and substitute site effects. Mimeo: School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, University of Newcastle upon Tyne’.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2008). The Choice Experiment Method and Use. In: Measuring the Value of Culture. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74360-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74360-6_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-74355-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-74360-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)