(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)"> (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vua/wpaper/2012-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Changing with the tide: Semi-parametric estimation of preference dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Dekker, T.
  • Koster, P.R.
  • Brouwer, R.
Abstract
This discussion paper resulted in a publication in Land Economics (2014). Volume 90(4), pages 717-745. This paper contrasts the discovered preference hypothesis against the theory of coherent arbitrariness in a split-sample stated choice experiment on flood risk exposure in the Netherlands. A semi-parametric local multinomial logit model (L-MNL) is developed as an alternative to the Swait and Louviere (1993) procedure to control for preference dynamics within and between samples. The L-MNL model finds empirical support for the discovered preference hypothesis in the form of a declining starting point bias induced by the first choice task. These results differ from the Swait and Louviere procedure which, due to its limited flexibility, accepts the standard assumption underlying microeconomic theory of stable preference parameters throughout the choice sequence. The observed preference dynamics puts the use of choice experiments at risk of generating biased welfare estimates if not controlled for.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Dekker, T. & Koster, P.R. & Brouwer, R., 2012. "Changing with the tide: Semi-parametric estimation of preference dynamics," Serie Research Memoranda 0005, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    • Handle: RePEc:vua:wpaper:2012-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://degree.ubvu.vu.nl/repec/vua/wpaper/pdf/20120005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Controlling Starting-Point Bias in Double-Bounded Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 103-111.
    3. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
    4. Brown, Thomas C. & Kingsley, David & Peterson, George L. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Clarke, Andrea & Birjulin, Andrej, 2008. "Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 1595-1606, July.
    5. 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.
    6. John M. Rose & Michiel C. J. Bliemer, 2008. "Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 587-617, October.
    7. Chien, Yu-Lan & Huang, Cliff J. & Shaw, Daigee, 2005. "A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 362-377, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Graham Loomes & Shepley Orr & Robert Sugden, 2009. "Taste uncertainty and status quo effects in consumer choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 113-135, October.
    10. Roy Brouwer & Thijs Dekker & John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 93-109, May.
    11. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    12. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    13. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2011. "A general treatment of ‘don't know’ responses from choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 171-191, June.
    14. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    15. Borzacchiello, M.T. & Casas, I. & Ciuffo, B. & Nijkamp, P., 2008. "Geo-ICT in Transportation Science," Serie Research Memoranda 0001, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    16. Paul Koster & Hans Koster, 2013. "Commuters' Preferences for Fast and Reliable Travel," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-075/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 30 Apr 2015.
    17. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    18. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 2010. "Preference reversals and disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to accept in repeated markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 374-387, June.
    19. Scott J. Savage & Donald M. Waldman, 2008. "Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 351-371.
    20. Corso, Phaedra S & Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 2001. "Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 165-184, September.
    21. David C. Kingsley & Thomas C. Brown, 2010. "Preference Uncertainty, Preference Learning, and Paired Comparison Experiments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    22. McFadden, Daniel, 1999. "Rationality for Economists?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 73-105, December.
    23. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    24. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    25. Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S & Train, Kenneth, 1999. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt45f996hh, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    26. Roy Brouwer & Marije Schaafsma, 2013. "Modelling risk adaptation and mitigation behaviour under different climate change scenarios," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 11-29, March.
    27. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    28. Jacinto Braga & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 55-89, September.
    29. Carlsson, Fredrik & Raun Mørkbak, Morten & Bøye Olsen, Søren, 2010. "The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments," Working Papers in Economics 470, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    30. Fosgerau, Mogens, 2007. "Using nonparametrics to specify a model to measure the value of travel time," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 842-856, November.
    31. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    32. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2008. "How Much is Too Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 165-176, June.
    33. Nagel, Herbert & Hatzinger, Reinhold, 1992. "Diagnostics in some discrete choice models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 407-414, May.
    34. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    35. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    36. 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.
    37. 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.
    38. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2009. "Bounded Rationality, Climate Risks, and Insurance: Is There a Market for Natural Disasters?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 265-278.
    39. Ariely, Dan & Loewenstein, George & Prelec, Drazen, 2006. "Tom Sawyer and the construction of value," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 1-10, May.
    40. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    41. Freedman, David A., 2006. "On The So-Called "Huber-Sandwich Estimator" and "Robust Standard Errors"," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 60, pages 299-302, November.
    42. 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.
    43. Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 2000. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 315-338, June.
    44. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    45. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    46. Agterberg, M. & Hooff, B. van den & Huysman, M., 2008. "Keeping the wheels turning : multi-level dynamics in organizing networks of practice," Serie Research Memoranda 0003, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    47. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    48. Arentze, Theo & Borgers, Aloys & Timmermans, Harry & DelMistro, Romano, 2003. "Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 229-244, May.
    49. Hess, Stephane & Rose, John M., 2009. "Allowing for intra-respondent variations in coefficients estimated on repeated choice data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 708-719, July.
    50. Agterberg, M. & Huysman, M. & Hooff, B. van den, 2008. "Leadership in online knowledge networks : challenges and coping strategies in a network of practice," Serie Research Memoranda 0004, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    51. Thomas P. Holmes & Kevin J. Boyle, 2005. "Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    52. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    53. Jeffery Racine & Jeffrey Hart & Qi Li, 2006. "Testing the Significance of Categorical Predictor Variables in Nonparametric Regression Models," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 523-544.
    54. 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.
    55. Fischhoff, Baruch & Welch, Ned & Fredrick, Shane, 1999. "Construal Processes in Preference Assessment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 139-164, December.
    56. Verhagen. T. & Feldberg, F. & Hooff, B. van den, 2008. "Explaining user adoption of virtual worlds: towards a multipurpose Explaining user adoption of virtual worlds: towards a multipurpose motivational model," Serie Research Memoranda 0006, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    57. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
    58. Clifford M. Hurvich & Jeffrey S. Simonoff & Chih‐Ling Tsai, 1998. "Smoothing parameter selection in nonparametric regression using an improved Akaike information criterion," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 60(2), pages 271-293.
    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. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    2. Koster, Paul R. & Koster, Hans R.A., 2015. "Commuters’ preferences for fast and reliable travel: A semi-parametric estimation approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 289-301.
    3. Paul Koster & Hans Koster, 2013. "Commuters' Preferences for Fast and Reliable Travel," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-075/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 30 Apr 2015.
    4. Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Urška Demšar & Nick Hanley, 2018. "Using Geographically Weighted Choice Models to Account for the Spatial Heterogeneity of Preferences," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 606-626, September.
    5. Tobias Börger & Kolobe Mmonwa & Danny Campbell, 2024. "Hazardous human–wildlife encounters, risk attitudes, and the value of shark nets for coastal recreation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 925-945, March.
    6. Mark J. Koetse & Roy Brouwer, 2016. "Reference Dependence Effects on WTA and WTP Value Functions and Their Disparity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 723-745, December.
    7. Amaris, Gloria & Vesely, Stepan & Hess, Stephane & Klöckner, Christian A., 2024. "Can competing demands affect pro-environmental behaviour: a study of the impact of exposure to partly related sequential experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    8. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2018. "A Monte Carlo investigation of the effects of spatial heterogeneity of preferences for discrete choice models," Working Papers 2018-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. Dekker, Thijs & Hess, Stephane & Brouwer, Roy & Hofkes, Marjan, 2016. "Decision uncertainty in multi-attribute stated preference studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-73.
    10. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2021. "Accounting for Spatial Heterogeneity of Preferences in Discrete Choice Models," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, March.
    11. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Barczak, Anna & Budziński, Wiktor & Giergiczny, Marek & Hanley, Nick, 2016. "Preference and WTP stability for public forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 11-22.
    12. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.

    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. 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.
    3. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    4. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    5. Tomasz Gajderowicz & Gabriela Grotkowska, 2019. "Polarization of Tastes: Stated Preference Stability in Sequential Discrete Choices," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 70-87.
    6. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
    7. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2012. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers 2012-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Raun Mørkbak, Morten & Bøye Olsen, Søren, 2010. "The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments," Working Papers in Economics 470, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. Campbell, Danny & Boeri, Marco & Doherty, Edel & George Hutchinson, W., 2015. "Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 345-363.
    11. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    12. 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.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    15. Kingsley, David C. & Brown, Thomas C., 2013. "Value learning and the willingness to accept–willingness to pay disparity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 473-476.
    16. 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.
    17. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2010. "Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1532-1544, May.
    18. Dekker, Thijs & Hess, Stephane & Brouwer, Roy & Hofkes, Marjan, 2016. "Decision uncertainty in multi-attribute stated preference studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-73.
    19. Tenaw G. Abate & Morten R. Mørkbak & Søren B. Olsen, 2018. "Inducing value and institutional learning effects in stated choice experiments using advanced disclosure and instructional choice set treatments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 339-351, May.
    20. Hess, Stephane & Hensher, David A. & Daly, Andrew, 2012. "Not bored yet – Revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 626-644.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:vua:wpaper:2012-5. 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: R. Dam (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fewvunl.html .

    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.