Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?

Land management in Alpine parks provides multifunctional services to separate groups of users. Choice experiments can be used to derive estimates of value for different management attributes. However, little research has been conducted on how frequently respondents ignore attributes used to describe policy management scenarios. We fill this gap using an approach that identifies and compares both serial and choice task attribute nonattendance addressing five different visitor types. Our results indicate that accounting for choice task nonattendance significantly improves model fit and yield estimates of marginal willingness to pay with a more plausible pattern of signs and greater efficiency. (JEL Q24, Q51)

[1]  Jian L. Zhou,et al.  User's Guide for CFSQP Version 2.0: A C Code for Solving (Large Scale) Constrained Nonlinear (Minimax) Optimization Problems, Generating Iterates Satisfying All Inequality Constraints , 1994 .

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

[3]  Alejandro Caparrós,et al.  Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments , 2007 .

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

[5]  Michel Bierlaire,et al.  BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models , 2003 .

[6]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .

[7]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Differential Attention to Attributes in Utility-theoretic Choice Models , 2010 .

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

[9]  Antonin Danalet.  An Empirical Investigation of the Determinants of Attention to Attributes in Choice Experiments , 2009 .

[10]  A. Goldberger.  A course in econometrics , 1991 .

[11]  Jerry A. Hausman and Paul A. Ruud.,et al.  Specifying and Testing Econometric Models for Rank-ordered Data with an Application to the Demand for Mobile and Portable Telephones , 1986 .

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

[13]  K. Boyle,et al.  Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions , 2005, Land Economics.

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

[15]  D. Hensher,et al.  Revealing the extent of process heterogeneity in choice analysis , 2009 .

[16]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  Models for Heterogeneous Variable Selection , 2006 .

[17]  David Laibson,et al.  The Allocation of Attention: Theory and Evidence , 2003 .

[18]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[19]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Valuing Animal Genetic Resources in Peasant Economies: The Case of the Box Keken Creole Pig in Yucatan , 2001 .

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

[21]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Valuing genetic resources in peasant economies: the case of ‘hairless’ creole pigs in Yucatan , 2003, Ecological Economics.

[22]  Dan Rigby,et al.  Modeling Disinterest and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food , 2006 .

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

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