[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v47y2023ics1755534523000027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments with positive status quo cost

Author

Listed:
  • Ahtiainen, Heini
  • Pouta, Eija
  • Zawadzki, Wojciech
  • Tienhaara, Annika
Abstract
An important component of the design phase of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) is formulating the cost vector, which specifies the costs of the alternatives and enables the calculation of marginal willingness to pay (WTP) estimates. If the cost vector affects choice behaviour, welfare estimates may depend on the choice of the cost vector, which leads to problems with the validity and reliability of DCE results. We employ a split-sample design to examine cost vector effects on choice behaviour and WTP estimates. Our data come from a DCE on agri-environmental policies to a nationally representative sample in Finland. We provide additional insights compared to previous research by including four cost vectors with otherwise identical surveys and experimental designs and a positive cost for the status quo alternative, with cost levels for policy alternatives both below and above the status quo cost. We obtain some evidence that the cost vector affects choice behaviour, as the proportion of status quo choices is larger with higher cost vectors. Both absolute and relative cost levels matter for choices. The marginal WTP estimates are highest in the sub-sample with the largest range cost vector that has cost levels both below and above the status quo cost. We suggest more careful pre-testing of the cost levels compared to current practices to determine a plausible range of cost levels to produce valid welfare estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija & Zawadzki, Wojciech & Tienhaara, Annika, 2023. "Cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments with positive status quo cost," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:47:y:2023:i:c:s1755534523000027
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534523000027
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100401?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    2. van Zanten, Boris T. & Koetse, Mark J. & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "Economic valuation at all cost? The role of the price attribute in a landscape preference study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 289-296.
    3. Annika Tienhaara & Emmi Haltia & Eija Pouta & Kyösti Arovuori & Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Antti Miettinen & Kauko Koikkalainen & Heini Ahtiainen & Janne Artell, 2020. "Demand and supply of agricultural ES: towards benefit-based policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(3), pages 1223-1249.
    4. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    5. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Lagerkvist, 2007. "Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 155-164, October.
    7. Brigitte Essers & Debby Helvoort-Postulart & Martin Prins & Martino Neumann & Carmen Dirksen, 2010. "Does the Inclusion of a Cost Attribute Result in Different Preferences for the Surgical Treatment of Primary Basal Cell Carcinoma?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 507-520, June.
    8. Tiziana Luisetti & Ian J. Bateman & R. Kerry Turner, 2011. "Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 284-296.
    9. Kenneth Train ., 2000. "Halton Sequences for Mixed Logit," Economics Working Papers E00-278, University of California at Berkeley.
    10. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    11. Niskanen, Olli & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    12. Petri Liesivaara & Sami Myyrä, 2014. "Willingness to pay for agricultural crop insurance in the northern EU," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 74(4), pages 539-554, October.
    13. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    14. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    15. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    16. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    17. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    18. Bhat, Chandra R., 2003. "Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 837-855, November.
    19. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    20. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
    21. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
    22. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    23. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Budziński, Wiktor, 2019. "Simulation error in maximum likelihood estimation of discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 73-85.
    24. Mandy Ryan & Sarah Wordsworth, 2000. "Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 504-524, November.
    25. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    26. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    27. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
    28. Christian Vossler & Gregory Poe & P. Welsh & Robert Ethier, 2004. "Bid Design Effects in Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(4), pages 401-418, December.
    29. Aravena, Claudia & Martinsson, Peter & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2014. "Does money talk? — The effect of a monetary attribute on the marginal values in a choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 483-491.
    30. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    31. repec:bla:scotjp:v:47:y:2000:i:5:p:504-24 is not listed on IDEAS
    32. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    33. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.
    34. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    35. Petri Liesivaara & Sami Myyrä, 2014. "Willingness to pay for agricultural crop insurance in the northern EU," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 74(4), pages 539-554, October.
    36. Stirling Bryan & Martin Buxton & Robert Sheldon & Alison Grant, 1998. "Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 595-603, November.
    37. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    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. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2024. "Instructional Choice Set to Reduce Hypothetical Bias and Choice Randomness in Discrete Choice Experiments," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343917, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Colombo, Sergio & Faccioli, Michela, 2024. "Enhancing the face validity of choice experiments: A simple diagnostic check," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(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. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
    2. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    4. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    5. Bujosa, Angel & Torres, Cati & Riera, Antoni, 2018. "Framing Decisions in Uncertain Scenarios: An Analysis of Tourist Preferences in the Face of Global Warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 36-42.
    6. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    7. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    8. Thijs Dekker & Paul Koster & Roy Brouwer, 2014. "Changing with the Tide: Semiparametric Estimation of Preference Dynamics," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 717-745.
    9. Parsons, George & Yan, Lingxiao, 2021. "Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    10. Marco A. Palma & Dmitry V. Vedenov & David Bessler, 2020. "The order of variables, simulation noise, and accuracy of mixed logit estimates," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2049-2083, May.
    11. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Kyriaki Remoundou & Fikret Adaman & Phoebe Koundouri & Paulo Nunes, 2014. "Is the value of environmental goods sensitive to the public funding scheme? Evidence from a marine restoration programme in the Black Sea," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1173-1192, December.
    14. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    15. Katherine Silz Carson & Susan M. Chilton & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2020. "Public resource allocation, strategic behavior, and status quo bias in choice experiments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 1-19, October.
    16. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Budziński, Wiktor, 2019. "Simulation error in maximum likelihood estimation of discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 73-85.
    17. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.
    18. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    19. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).

    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:eee:eejocm:v:47:y:2023:i:c:s1755534523000027. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.