Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study

Abstract Good practice in experimental design is essential for choice experiments used in nonmarket valuation. We review the practice of experimental design for choice experiments in environmental economics and we compare it with advances in experimental design. We then evaluate the statistical efficiency of four different designs by means of Monte Carlo experiments. Correct and incorrect specifications are investigated with gradually more precise information on the true parameter values. The data generating process (DGP) is based on estimates from data of a real study. Results indicate that D-efficient designs are promising, especially when based on Bayesian algorithms with informative prior. However, if good quality a priori information is lacking, and if there is strong uncertainty about the real DGP—conditions which are quite common in environmental valuation—then practitioners might be better off with shifted designs built from conventional fractional factorial designs for linear models.

[1]  Heinz Holling,et al.  Optimal designs for main effects in linear paired comparison models , 2004 .

[2]  Deborah J. Street,et al.  Optimal designs for choice experiments with asymmetric attributes , 2005 .

[3]  D. Street,et al.  Optimal and near-optimal pairs for the estimation of effects in 2-level choice experiments , 2004 .

[4]  K. Rollins.  Wilderness Canoeing in Ontario: Using Cumulative Results to Update Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Offer Amounts , 1997 .

[5]  D. Raghavarao,et al.  Design strategies for sequential choice experiments involving economic alternatives , 2006 .

[6]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models , 2002 .

[7]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event , 1983 .

[8]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Optimal Design for Multinomial Choice Experiments , 2002 .

[9]  V. Rao,et al.  A Rejoinder to “How Many Scales and how many Categories shall we use in Consumer Research?—A Comment” , 1971 .

[10]  Sean Pascoe,et al.  Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives using choice-experiments , 2005 .

[11]  Marinus Egbert Haaijer,et al.  Modeling conjoint choice experiments with the probit model , 1999 .

[12]  D. Hensher,et al.  Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates , 2005 .

[13]  Susana Mourato,et al.  Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope , 2003 .

[14]  W. Näther.  Optimum experimental designs , 1994 .

[15]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice , 2003 .

[16]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Performance of Error Component Models for Status-Quo Effects in Choice Experiments , 2005 .

[17]  Heinz Holling,et al.  Optimal paired comparison designs for first-order interactions , 2003 .

[18]  Elisabetta Strazzera,et al.  Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach , 2005 .

[19]  Joel Huber,et al.  Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments , 2001 .

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

[21]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 1993 .

[22]  Heinz Holling,et al.  Advances in optimum experimental design for conjoint analysis and discrete choice models , 2002 .

[23]  David S. Bunch,et al.  OPTIMAL DESIGNS FOR 2 k PAIRED COMPARISON EXPERIMENTS , 2001 .

[24]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment , 2001 .

[25]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models , 1995 .

[26]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. , 2003, Health economics.

[27]  A. Bowman,et al.  Applied smoothing techniques for data analysis : the kernel approach with S-plus illustrations , 1999 .

[28]  K. Sælensminde,et al.  The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies , 2002 .

[29]  John M. Rose,et al.  THE DESIGN OF STATED CHOICE EXPERIMENTS: THE STATE OF PRACTICE AND FUTURE CHALLENGES , 2004 .

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

[31]  Mark J. Garratt,et al.  Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications , 1994 .

[32]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Design of Sequential Experiments for Contingent Valuation Studies , 1993 .

[33]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation , 2000 .

[34]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Individual benefit estimates for rural landscape improvements: the role of sequential Bayesian design and response rationality in a choice experiment study , 2005 .

[35]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[36]  Gary Koop,et al.  Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland , 2002 .

[37]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data , 1983 .

[38]  Deborah J. Street,et al.  Optimal stated preference choice experiments when all choice sets contain a specific option , 2004 .

[39]  K. Chaloner,et al.  Bayesian Experimental Design: A Review , 1995 .

[40]  C. León,et al.  Altruism and the Economic Values of Environmental and Social Policies , 2004 .

[41]  Donald A. Anderson,et al.  Designs of Discrete Choice Set Experiments for Estimating Both Attribute and Availability Cross Effects , 1994 .

[42]  P. Boxall,et al.  Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach , 2002 .

[43]  Peter Goos,et al.  A Comparison of Criteria to Design Efficient Choice Experiments , 2006 .

[44]  Rosalie Viney,et al.  Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care. , 2005, Health economics.

[45]  Fredrik Carlsson,et al.  Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments , 2003 .

[46]  K. Train.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[47]  Peter Goos,et al.  Comparing algorithms and criteria for designing Bayesian conjoint choice experiments , 2004 .

[48]  N. Hanley,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment , 1998 .

[49]  A. Atkinson,et al.  The design of experiments for discriminating between two rival models , 1975 .

[50]  Thomas P. Holmes,et al.  Attribute-Based Methods , 2003 .

[51]  P. Horne,et al.  Preferences for Alternative Moose Management Regimes among Finnish Landowners: A Choice Experiment Approach , 2003, Land Economics.

[52]  J. Herriges,et al.  Inducing Patterns of Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Models of Recreation Demand , 2002 .

[53]  Eric Ruto,et al.  Valuing Indigenous Cattle Breeds in Kenya: An Empirical Comparison of Stated and Revealed Preference Value Estimates , 2001 .

[54]  M. Wedel,et al.  The No—Choice Alternative in Conjoint Choice Experiments , 2001 .

[55]  Warren F. Kuhfeld,et al.  Large Factorial Designs for Product Engineering and Marketing Research Applications , 2005, Technometrics.

[56]  John Hinde,et al.  Parameter Neutral Optimum Design for Non‐linear Models , 1997 .

[57]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[58]  E. Pouta,et al.  Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland , 2003 .

[59]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  A primer on nonmarket valuation , 2003 .

[60]  K. Train,et al.  Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns , 1998 .

[61]  Deborah J. Street,et al.  Optimal Designs for 2 k Choice Experiments , 2003 .

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

[63]  M C Bliemer,et al.  Efficient Designs for Alternative Specific Choice Experiments , 2005 .

[64]  F. Norwood,et al.  Effect of Experimental Design on Choice‐Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates , 2005 .

[65]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments , 2005 .

[66]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation , 1996 .

[67]  Zhishi Wang,et al.  Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao , 2006 .

[68]  H. Nyquist.  Optimal Designs of Discrete Response Experiments in Contingent Valuation Studies , 1992 .