[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v96y2020i1p1-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Lloyd-Smith
  • Ewa Zawojska
  • Wiktor Adamowicz
Abstract
We reexamine the literature comparing contingent valuation (CV) and choice experiments (CEs) in terms of stated preference design features, and empirically investigate an understudied dimension in these comparisons, namely, presentation effects. Structured analysis of the literature suggests that the comparisons of CV and CEs as broad descriptive terms may mask the many design and methodological differences seen in implementations of the approaches. In the empirical component, we find preference disclosure to be unaffected by text and table presentation formats in elicitation tasks, except when only the first task is considered. Implications of our findings for stated preference research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:96:y:2020:i:1:p:1-24
    Note: DOI: 10.3368/le.96.1.1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/96/1/1
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Bettman, James R & Kakkar, Pradeep, 1977. "Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 3(4), pages 233-240, March.
    4. Mathews, Leah Greden & Kask, Susan B. & Stewart, Steve, 2004. "The Value Of The View: Valuing Scenic Quality Using Choice And Contingent Valuation Models," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20049, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2011. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 554-571, September.
    6. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    7. Hoehn, John P. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2010. "Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-23, December.
    8. Luchini, S. & Watson, V., 2014. "Are choice experiments reliable? Evidence from the lab," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 9-13.
    9. Schkade, David A. & Kleinmuntz, Don N., 1994. "Information Displays and Choice Processes: Differential Effects of Organization, Form, and Sequence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 319-337, March.
    10. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    11. Savannah Wei Shi & Michel Wedel & F. G. M. (Rik) Pieters, 2013. "Information Acquisition During Online Decision Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1009-1026, May.
    12. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    13. Mike Christie & Christopher D. Azevedo, 2009. "Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 154-170, February.
    14. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    15. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    16. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    17. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    18. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Dupont, Diane & Krupnick, Alan & Zhang, Jing, 2011. "Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-226, March.
    19. Abou-Ali, Hala, 2003. "Using stated preference methods to evaluate the impact of water on health: the case of metropolitan Cairo," Working Papers in Economics 113, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    21. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    22. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    23. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    24. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    25. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    26. Lockwood, Michael & Carberry, David, 1999. "Stated preference surveys of remnant native vegetation conservation," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 123831, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    27. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-070/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    28. Bettman, James R & Zins, Michel A, 1979. "Information Format and Choice Task Effects in Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 6(2), pages 141-153, Se.
    29. J. Price & D. Dupont & W. Adamowicz, 2017. "As Time Goes By: Examination of Temporal Stability Across Stated Preference Question Formats," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 643-662, November.
    30. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    31. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    32. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    33. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann & Priska Weller, 2015. "The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 385-407, July.
    34. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents," Working Papers 2004.100, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    35. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2017. "The value of wetlands in Quebec: a comparison between contingent valuation and choice experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 51-78, January.
    36. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    37. Tran Tuan & Stale Navrud, 2007. "Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 51-69, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simona Bigerna & Andrea Marchini & Silvia Micheli & Paolo Polinori, 2023. "Pre- and during COVID-19: Households’ Willingness to Pay for Local Organic Food in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-18, June.
    2. James Macaskill & Patrick Lloyd‐Smith, 2022. "Six decades of environmental resource valuation in Canada: A synthesis of the literature," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(1), pages 73-89, March.
    3. Xie, Lusi & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Kecinski, Maik & Fooks, Jacob R., 2022. "Using economic experiments to assess the validity of stated preference contingent behavior responses," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. D'Alberto, Riccardo & Zavalloni, Matteo & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2021. "A Statistical Matching approach to reproduce the heterogeneity of willingness to pay in benefit transfer," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    3. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    4. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    5. Xuan Thi Dan Huynh & Tien Dung Khong & Adam Loch & Huynh Viet Khai, 2023. "Solid waste management program in developing countries: contingent valuation methodology versus choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12395-12417, November.
    6. Khuc, Quy Van & Nong, Duy & Phu Vu, Tri, 2022. "To pay or not to pay that is the question - for air pollution mitigation in a world’s dynamic city: An experiment in Hanoi, Vietnam," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 687-701.
    7. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    8. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    9. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    10. José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    11. Nick Hanley & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Stated Preference valuation methods: an evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy," Working Papers 2017-01, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Christian A. Vossler & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Toward a better understanding of elicitation effects in stated preference studies," Working Papers 2018-01, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    13. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    14. Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & José Gómez-Limón, 2008. "Reconsidering Heterogeneity and Aggregation Issues in Environmental Valuation: A Multi-attribute Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 551-570, August.
    15. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    16. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    17. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Zawojska, Ewa, 2018. "Is there really a difference between “contingent valuation” and “choice experiments”? Evidence from an induced-value experiment," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274015, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    19. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 29-48, May.
    20. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:96:y:2020:i:1:p:1-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.