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

References

1. ↵
   1. 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. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
2. ↵
   1. Adamowicz Wiktor,
   2. Boxall Peter,
   3. Williams Michael,
   4. Louviere Jordan

   1998. “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1): 64–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180269.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. ↵
   1. Adamowicz Wiktor,
   2. Dupont Diane,
   3. Krupnick Alan,
   4. 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 61 (2): 213–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.10.003.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Bettman James R.,
   2. Kakkar Pradeep

   . 1977. “Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies.” Journal of Consumer Research 3 (4): 233–40.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
5. ↵
   1. Bettman James R.,
   2. Zins Michel A

   . 1979. “Information Format and Choice Task Effects in Decision Making.” Journal of Consumer Research 6 (2): 141–53. https://doi.org/10.1086/208757.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
6. 1. Bishop Richard C.,
   2. Boyle Kevin J.,
   3. Carson Richard T.,
   4. Chapman David,
   5. Michael Hanemann W.,
   6. Kanninen Barbara,
   7. Kopp Raymond J.,
   8. Krosnick Jon A.,
   9. List John,
   10. Meade Norman,
   11. et al.

   2017. “Putting a Value on Injuries to Natural Assets: The BP Oil Spill.” Science 356 (6335): 253–54. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8124.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
7. ↵
   1. Boxall Peter C.,
   2. Adamowicz Wiktor L.,
   3. Swait Joffre,
   4. Williams Michael,
   5. Louviere Jordan

   1996. “A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Valuation.” Ecological Economics 18 (3): 243–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. ↵
   1. Boyle Kevin J

   . 2017. “Contingent Valuation in Practice.” In A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, ed. Champ Patricia A., Boyle Kevin J., Brown Thomas C., 83–132. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
9. ↵
   1. Cameron Trudy Ann,
   2. Poe Gregory L.,
   3. Ethier Robert G.,
   4. Schulze William D.

   2002. “Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (3): 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1210.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. Carson Katherine Silz,
    2. Chilton Susan M.,
    3. George Hutchinson W.

    2009. “Necessary Conditions for Demand Revelation in Double Referenda.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57 (2): 219–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2008.07.005.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Carson Richard T.,
    2. Groves Theodore

    . 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (1): 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. ↵
    1. Carson Richard T.,
    2. Groves Theodore

    . 2011. “Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions: Commentary and Extensions.” In International Handbook of Non-market Environmental Valuation, ed. Bennett Jeff, 300–21. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
13. 1. Carson Richard T.,
    2. Louviere Jordan J

    . 2011. “A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches.” Environmental and Resource Economics 49 (4): 539–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9450-x.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Champ Patricia A.,
    2. Boyle Kevin J.,
    3. Brown Thomas C.

    2017. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
15. ↵
    1. Christie Mike,
    2. Azevedo Christopher D

    . 2009. “Testing the Consistency between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (1): 154–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2008.00178.x.

    OpenUrl
16. 1. Christie Mike,
    2. Hanley Nick,
    3. Warren John,
    4. Murphy Kevin,
    5. Wright Robert,
    6. Hyde Tony

    2006. “Valuing the Diversity of Biodiversity.” Ecological Economics 58 (2): 304–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.034.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
17. ↵
    1. Collins Jill P.,
    2. Vossler Christian A

    . 2009. “Incentive Compatibility Tests of Choice Experiment Value Elicitation Questions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58 (2): 226–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2009.04.004.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Colombo Sergio,
    2. Calatrava-Requena Javier,
    3. Hanley Nick

    2006. “Analysing the Social Benefits of Soil Conservation Measures Using Stated Preference Methods.” Ecological Economics 58 (4): 850–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.010.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
19. ↵
    1. Ettlin Florence,
    2. Bröder Arndt

    . 2015. “Perceptual Grouping Does Not Affect Multi-attribute Decision Making If No Processing Costs Are Involved.” Acta Psychologica 157: 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.02.002.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Farquharson Robin

    . 1969. Theory of Voting. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21. ↵
    1. Fischbacher Urs

    . 2007. “Z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Readymade Economic Experiments.” Experimental Economics 10 (2): 171–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. ↵
    1. Foster Vivien,
    2. Mourato Susana

    . 2003. “Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope.” Environmental and Resource Economics 24 (2): 141–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022856329552.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Goldberg Issabell,
    2. Roosen Jutta

    . 2007. “Scope Insensitivity in Health Risk Reduction Studies: A Comparison of Choice Experiments and the Contingent Valuation Method for Valuing Safer Food.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 34 (2): 123–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-007-9006-9.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. ↵
    1. Hanley Nick,
    2. MacMillan Douglas,
    3. Wright Robert E.,
    4. Bullock Craig,
    5. Simpson Ian,
    6. Parsisson Dave,
    7. Crabtree Bob

    1998. “Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 49 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998.tb01248.x.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
25. 1. Hanley Nick,
    2. Wright Robert E.,
    3. Adamowicz Vic

    1998. “Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment.” Environmental and Research Economics 11 (3): 413–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008287310583.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Hasler Berit,
    2. Lundhede Thomas,
    3. Martinsen Louise,
    4. Neye Sune,
    5. Schou Jesper S.

    2005. Valuation of Groundwater Protection versus Water Treatment in Denmark by Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. NERI Technical Report No. 543. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Environmental Research Institute, Ministry of the Environment. Available at https://www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/rapporter/FR543.PDF.
27. ↵
    1. He Jie,
    2. Dupras Jérôme,
    3. Poder Thomas G.

    2017. “The Value of Wetlands in Quebec: A Comparison between Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiment.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 6 (1): 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2016.1199976.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Hoehn John P.,
    2. Lupi Frank,
    3. 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 35 (3): 568–90.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Jin Jianjun,
    2. Wang Zhishi,
    3. Ran Shenghong

    2006. “Comparison of Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiment in Solid Waste Management Programs in Macao.” Ecological Economics 57 (3): 430–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.020.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
30. ↵
    1. Johnston Robert J.,
    2. Boyle Kevin J.,
    3. Adamowicz Wiktor (Vic),
    4. Bennett Jeff,
    5. Brouwer Roy,
    6. Cameron Trudy Ann,
    7. Michael Hanemann W.,
    8. Hanley Nick,
    9. Ryan Mandy,
    10. Scarpa Riccardo,
    11. et al.

    2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 319–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/691697.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
31. ↵
    1. Lehtonen Emmi,
    2. Kuuluvainen Jari,
    3. Pouta Eija,
    4. Rekola Mika,
    5. Li Chuan-Zhong

    2003. “Non-market Benefits of Forest Conservation in Southern Finland.” Environmental Science and Policy 6 (3): 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00035-2.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. Lockwood Michael,
    2. Carberry David

    . 1999. “Stated Preference Surveys of Remnant Native Vegetation Conservation.” Presented at the 43rd Annual AARES Conference and the 6th Annual NZARES Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, January 20–22.
33. ↵
    1. Loomis John,
    2. Santiago Luis

    . 2013. “Economic Valuation of Beach Quality Improvements: Comparing Incremental Attribute Values Estimated from Two Stated Preference Valuation Methods.” Coastal Management 41 (1): 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2012.749754.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
34. ↵
    1. Luchini Stéphane,
    2. Watson Verity

    2014. “Are Choice Experiments Reliable? Evidence from the Lab.” Economics Letters 124 (1): 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.04.005.

    OpenUrl
35. ↵
    1. Madureira Lívia,
    2. Nunes Luis C.,
    3. Santos José L.

    2005. “Valuing Multi-attribute Environmental Changes: Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments.” Presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Bremen, Germany, June 23–26.
36. ↵
    1. Mathews Leah Greden,
    2. Kask Susan B.,
    3. Stewart Steve

    2004. “The Value of the View: Valuing Scenic Quality Using Choice and Contingent Valuation Models.” Presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, August 1–4.
37. ↵
    1. McNair Ben J.,
    2. Bennett Jeff,
    3. Hensher David A.

    2011. “A Comparison of Responses to Single and Repeated Discrete Choice Questions.” Resource and Energy Economics 33 (3): 554–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.12.003.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Metcalfe Paul J.,
    2. Baker William,
    3. Andrews Kevin,
    4. Atkinson Giles,
    5. Bateman Ian J.,
    6. Butler Sarah,
    7. Carson Richard T.,
    8. East Jo,
    9. Gueron Yves,
    10. Sheldon Rob,
    11. Train Kenneth

    2012. “An Assessment of the Non-market Benefit of the Water Framework Directive for Households in England and Wales.” Water Resources Research 48 (3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009592.
39. ↵
    1. Meyerhoff Jürgen,
    2. Oehlmann Malte,
    3. Weller Priska

    2015. “The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context.” Environmental and Resource Economics 61 (3): 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9797-5.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
40. ↵
    1. Mitani Yohei,
    2. Flores Nicholas E

    . 2014. “Hypothetical Bias Reconsidered: Payment and Provision Uncertainties in a Threshold Provision Mechanism.” Environmental and Resource Economics 59 (3): 433–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9741-0.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Mogas Joan,
    2. Riera Pere,
    3. Bennett Jeff

    2006. “A Comparison of Contingent Valuation and Choice Modelling: Estimating the Environmental Values of Catalonian Forests.” Journal of Forest Economics 12 (1): 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2005.11.001.

    OpenUrl
42. ↵
    1. Oviedo José L.,
    2. Caparrós Alejandro

    . 2015. “Information and Visual Attention in Contingent Valuation and Choice Modelling: Field and Eye-Tracking Experiments Applied to Reforestations in Spain.” Journal of Forest Economics 21 (4): 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.09.002.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Petrolia Daniel R.,
    2. Interis Matthew G

    . 2013. “Should We Be Using Repeated-Choice Surveys to Value Public Goods?” Newsletter of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 33 (2): 19–25.

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. Petrolia Daniel R.,
    2. Interis Matthew G.,
    3. Hwang Joonghyun

    2014. “America’s Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands.” Marine Resource Economics 29 (1): 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/676289.

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Petrolia Daniel R.,
    2. Interis Matthew G.,
    3. Hwang Joonghyun

    2018. “Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?” Environmental and Resource Economics 69 (2): 365–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0083-6.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Polomé Philippe

    . 2003. “Experimental Evidence on Deliberate Misrepresentation in Referendum Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 52 (3): 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00024-6.

    OpenUrl
47. ↵
    1. Price J.,
    2. Dupont D.,
    3. Adamowicz W.

    2017. “As Time Goes By: Examination of Temporal Stability across Stated Preference Question Formats.” Environmental and Resource Economics 68 (3): 643–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0039-x.

    OpenUrl
48. ↵
    1. Randall Alan,
    2. Ives Berry,
    3. Eastman Clyde

    1974. “Bidding Games for Valuation of Aesthetic Environmental Improvements.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1 (2): 132–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(74)90010-2.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
49. ↵
    1. Ryan Mandy

    . 2004. “A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for Estimating Monetary Values.” Health Economics 13 (3): 291–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.818.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
50. ↵
    1. Schkade David A.,
    2. Kleinmuntz Don N

    . 1994. “Information Displays and Choice Processes: Differential Effects of Organization, Form, and Sequence.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57 (3): 319–37. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1018.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
51. ↵
    1. Shi Savannah Wei,
    2. Wedel Michel,
    3. Pieters F. G. M.

    2013. “Information Acquisition during Online Decision Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data.” Management Science 59 (5): 1009–26. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1625.

    OpenUrl
52. ↵
    1. Stevens T. H.,
    2. Belkner R.,
    3. Dennis D.,
    4. Kittredge D.,
    5. Willis C.

    2000. “Comparison of Contingent Valuation and Conjoint Analysis in Ecosystem Management.” Ecological Economics 32 (1): 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00071-3.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
53. ↵
    1. Travisi Chiara M.,
    2. Nijkamp Peter

    . 2004. “Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents.” Working Paper 100.4. Milan, Italy: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
54. ↵
    1. Tuan Tran Huu,
    2. Navrud Stale

    . 2007. “Valuing Cultural Heritage in Developing Countries: Comparing and Pooling Contingent Valuation and Choice Modelling Estimates.” Environmental and Resource Economics 38 (1): 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9056-5.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
55. ↵
    1. Tversky Amos

    . 1969. “Intransitivity of Preferences.” Psychological Review 76 (1): 31–48, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026750.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
56. ↵
    1. Vossler Christian A.,
    2. Doyon Maurice,
    3. Rondeau Daniel

    2012. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4 (4): 145–71.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
57. ↵
    1. Vossler Christian A.,
    2. McKee Michael

    . 2006. “Induced-Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms.” Environmental and Resource Economics 35 (2): 137–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9011-5.

    OpenUrl
58. ↵
    1. Vossler Christian A.,
    2. Zawojska Ewa

    . 2018. “Toward a Better Understanding of Elicitation Effects in Stated Preference Studies.” Working Paper 2018-01. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
59. ↵
    1. Weber Matthew A.,
    2. Stewart Steven

    . 2009. “Public Values for River Restoration Options on the Middle Rio Grande.” Restoration Ecology 17 (6): 762–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00407.x.

    OpenUrl