Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification

There is a growing literature on the design and use of stated choice experiments. Analysts have developed sophisticated ways of analysing such data, using a form of discrete choice model to identify the marginal (dis)utility associated with observed attributes linked to an alternative, as well as accounting for preference and scale heterogeneity. There is also a growing literature studying the attribute processing rules that respondents use as a way of simplifying the task of choosing. Using the latent class framework, we define classes based on rules that recognise the non-attendance to one or more attributes. These processing rules are postulated to be used in real markets as a form of cognitive rationalisation. The empirical study involves a choice amongst rural environmental landscape improvements in the Republic of Ireland. We estimate models and calculate a marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for four landscape improvements, and contrast it with the results from a model specification in which all attributes are assumed to be attended to with parameter preservation. We find that the marginal WTP is, on average, significantly higher when full attribute preservation specification is adopted, raising questions about the appropriateness of current practice that assume a fully compensatory attribute choice rule.

[1]  J. Swait.  A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data☆ , 1994 .

[2]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  Cancellation and focus: the role of shared and unique features in the choice process , 1995 .

[3]  Kathryn Roeder,et al.  Modeling Uncertainty in Latent Class Membership: A Case Study in Criminology , 1999 .

[4]  Joffre Swait,et al.  A NON-COMPENSATORY CHOICE MODEL INCORPORATING ATTRIBUTE CUTOFFS , 2001 .

[5]  M. Wedel,et al.  Designing Conjoint Choice Experiments Using Managers' Prior Beliefs , 2001 .

[6]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling , 2002 .

[7]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[8]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[9]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes , 2004 .

[10]  Benjamin Heydecker,et al.  A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds forperception in attribute values , 2006 .

[11]  K. Tentori,et al.  Contingent application of the cancellation editing operation: the role of semantic relatedness between risky outcomes , 2004 .

[12]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[13]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[14]  J. Ortúzar,et al.  A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception , 2005 .

[15]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[16]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment , 2006 .

[17]  D. Hensher.  How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load , 2006 .

[18]  Danny Campbell,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models , 2007 .

[19]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment , 2005, Land Economics.

[20]  D. O’Reilly,et al.  Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements , 2007 .

[21]  Jeroen K. Vermunt,et al.  Removing the Scale Factor Confound in Multinomial Logit Choice Models to Obtain Better Estimates of Preference 1 , 2022 .

[22]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study , 2007 .

[23]  John M. Rose,et al.  Stated Preference Experimental Design Strategies , 2007 .

[24]  M. Hanemann,et al.  Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly. , 2008, Journal of health economics.

[25]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Joint estimation of process and outcome in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay , 2008 .

[26]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments , 2008 .

[27]  John M. Rose,et al.  Design Efficiency for Non-Market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure it, What to Report and Why , 2008 .

[28]  D. Hensher,et al.  The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders , 2008 .

[29]  D. Hensher,et al.  Aggregation of common-metric attributes in preference revelation in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay , 2008 .

[30]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Using Conditioning on Observed Choices to Retrieve Individual-Specific Attribute Processing Strategies , 2010 .

[31]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation , 2009 .

[32]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Attribute Processing, Heuristics, and Preference Construction in Choice Analysis , 2009 .

[33]  John M. Rose,et al.  Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: Implications for willingness to pay , 2009 .

[34]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Aggregation of common-metric attributes in preference revelation and implications for willingness to pay , 2010 .

[35]  D. Hensher,et al.  Parameter transfer of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: implications for willingness to pay , 2010 .

[36]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification , 2010 .

[37]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Ordered Choices and Heterogeneity in Attribute Processing , 2010 .

[38]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: identification and implications , 2011 .

[39]  D. Campbell,et al.  The effect of using labelled alternatives in stated choice experiments: an exploration focusing on farmland walking trails in Ireland , 2011 .

[40]  J. Louviere,et al.  Modelling attribute non-attendance in best-worst rank ordered choice data to estimate tourism benefits from Alpine pasture heritage , 2011 .

[41]  John M. Rose,et al.  Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design , 2012 .

[42]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects , 2012 .

[43]  D. Campbell,et al.  Exploring cost heterogeneity in recreational demand , 2012 .

[44]  K. Glenk,et al.  Preferences of Scotch malt whisky consumers for changes in pesticide use and origin of barley , 2012 .

[45]  D. Campbell,et al.  Labelling effects in discrete choice experiments , 2012 .

[46]  Stephane Hess,et al.  It’s not that I don’t care, I just don’t care very much: confounding between attribute non-attendance and taste heterogeneity , 2013 .

[47]  Jürgen Meyerhoff,et al.  Stated or inferred attribute non-attendance? A simulation approach , 2013 .

[48]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Accounting for attribute non-attendance and common-metric aggregation in a probabilistic decision process mixed multinomial logit model: a warning on potential confounding , 2013 .

[49]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Valuing the chances of survival of two distinct Eurasian lynx populations in Poland - do people want to keep the doors open? , 2013, Journal of environmental management.