Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs

Abstract Respondents' stated preferences for attributes related to various electricity-generation scenarios are analyzed using a series of pairwise ratings. Multiple observations for each respondent facilitate estimating individual scale parameters. Scale estimates can identify uninformative rating patterns and make it possible to delete such observations or adjust WTP calculations. Cross-section/time-series analysis of the data indicates that nonprice attributes increase in salience during the course of the experiment. Thus later responses may be better indicators of preferences than earlier responses. Comparisons of polychotomous with dichotomous models indicate that most respondents' relative-preference ratings are not simply dichotomous, but discriminate systematically along the rating scale.

[1]  T. Cameron,et al.  Welfare effects of changes in environmental quality under individual uncertainty about use , 1997 .

[2]  Joel Huber,et al.  Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis☆ , 1991 .

[3]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[4]  W. Edwards.  Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications , 1992 .

[5]  Richard M. Johnson.  Comment on “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some Caveats and Suggestions”7 , 1991 .

[6]  K. G. Willis,et al.  Environmental Valuation: New Perspectives , 1995 .

[7]  W. Viscusi,et al.  The value of risks to life and health , 1993 .

[8]  Maureen L. Cropper,et al.  Measuring the benefits from reduced morbidity , 1981 .

[9]  C. Gan,et al.  A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana , 1993, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[10]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[11]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Experimental analysis of choice , 1991 .

[12]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some Caveats and Suggestions , 1991 .

[13]  R. Rowe,et al.  Managing Air Quality And Scenic Resources At National Parks And Wilderness Areas , 1982 .

[14]  David S. Brookshire,et al.  The valuation of aesthetic preferences , 1976 .

[15]  Colin Camerer.  Recent Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory , 1992 .

[16]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Assessing the potential demand for electric cars , 1981 .

[17]  Paul J. H. Schoemaker,et al.  Determinants of risk-taking: Behavioral and economic views , 1993 .

[18]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[19]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation , 1996 .

[20]  Manoj K. Agarwal,et al.  Adaptive conjoint analysis versus selfexplicated models: Some empirical results , 1991 .

[21]  F. Johnson,et al.  Valuing Stated Preferences for Health Benefits of Improved Air Quality: Results of a Pilot Study , 1997 .

[22]  M S Thompson,et al.  Willingness to pay and accept risks to cure chronic disease. , 1986, American journal of public health.

[23]  Maureen L. Cropper,et al.  The effect of information on health risk valuations , 1992 .

[24]  Philippe Cattin,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update , 1989 .

[25]  D. Wittink,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey , 1982 .

[26]  V. Smith.  Some Issues In Discrete Response Contingent Valuation Studies , 1985 .

[27]  Wesley D. Seitz,et al.  Measuring Water Quality Benefits , 1986 .

[28]  John Mackenzie,et al.  A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models , 1993 .

[29]  William H. Desvousges,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes , 1987, Journal of Political Economy.