Disentangling the influence of knowledge on attribute non-attendance

We seek to disentangle the effect of knowledge about an environmental good on respondents' propensity to ignore one or more attributes on the choice cards in a discrete choice experiment eliciting people's preferences for increased protection of cold-water corals in Norway. We hypothesize that a respondent's level of knowledge influences the degree to which she ignores attributes. Respondents participated in a quiz on cold-water coral prior to the valuation task and we use the result of the quiz as an ex-ante measure of their knowledge. Our results suggests that a high level of knowledge, measured by a high quiz score, is associated with higher probabilities of attendance to the three non-cost attributes, although this effect is only significant for one of them. A higher quiz score is also associated with a significantly lower probability of attending to the cost attribute. Furthermore, although being told your score has mixed directional effects on attribute non-attendance, it does not significantly affect the probability of attending to any of the attributes. Finally, allowing for attribute non-attendance leads to substantially lower conditional willingness-to-pay estimates. This highlights the importance of measuring how much people know about the goods over which they are choosing, and underlines that more research is needed to understand how information influences the degree to which respondents ignore attributes.

[1]  Raffaele Zanoli,et al.  Inferred and Stated Attribute Non‐Attendance in Food Choice Experiments , 2013 .

[2]  N. Hanley,et al.  Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine? , 2006 .

[3]  Andrew Daly,et al.  Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models , 2009 .

[4]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification , 2011 .

[5]  Carsten Lynge Jensen,et al.  Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments , 2011 .

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

[7]  Jeffrey Englin,et al.  Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods , 1997 .

[8]  Frank Lupi,et al.  Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters , 2010 .

[9]  C. Bhat.  Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences , 2003 .

[10]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Bounding WTP distributions to reflect the 'actual'consideration set , 2014 .

[11]  John W. Polak,et al.  A systematic comparison of continuous and discrete mixture models , 2007 .

[12]  M. Rekola,et al.  Lexicographic Preferences in Contingent Valuation: A Theoretical Framework with Illustrations , 2003, Land Economics.

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

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

[15]  Mark S. Seasholes,et al.  Do Investor Sophistication and Trading Experience Eliminate Behavioral Biases in Financial Markets , 2005 .

[16]  S. Hess.  Conditional parameter estimates from Mixed Logit models: distributional assumptions and a free software tool , 2010 .

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

[18]  L. Nøttestad,et al.  Distribution and abundance of fish in deep-sea coral habitats , 2002, Hydrobiologia.

[19]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model , 2014, Environmental and Resource Economics.

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

[21]  D. Campbell,et al.  Examining labelling effects within discrete choice experiments: an application to recreational site choice. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[22]  Jacob LaRiviere,et al.  The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods , 2015 .

[23]  P. B. Mortensen,et al.  The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts , 2002, Hydrobiologia.

[24]  J. List.  Does market experience eliminate market anomalies , 2003 .

[25]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Information, uncertainty, and contingent valuation , 1999 .

[26]  Nick Hanley,et al.  What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? Implications for ecosystem service valuation , 2013 .

[27]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  A discrete choice model with endogenous attribute attendance , 2011 .

[28]  N. Hanley,et al.  Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: Preserving cold-water coral in Norway , 2015 .

[29]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Do Experience and Cheap Talk influence Willingness to Pay in an Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Survey? , 2006 .

[30]  J. Roberts,et al.  Cold-Water Coral Reefs , 2019, Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences.

[31]  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 .

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

[33]  J. List,et al.  Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies? The Case of Exogenous Market Experience , 2011 .

[34]  R. Thaler,et al.  Labor Supply of New York City Cabdrivers: One Day at a Time , 1997 .

[35]  N. Hanley,et al.  Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation , 2007 .

[36]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  Accounting for Attribute-Level Non-Attendance in a Health Choice Experiment: Does it Matter? , 2015, Health economics.

[37]  N. Hanley,et al.  Should all Choices Count? Using the Cut-Offs Approach to Edit Responses in a Choice Experiment , 2009 .

[38]  Nick Hanley,et al.  The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good , 2014 .

[39]  Ira Pohl,et al.  Object-Oriented Programming Using C++ , 1993 .

[40]  A. Kosenius.  Preference discontinuity in choice experiment: Determinants and implications , 2013 .

[41]  Nick Hanley,et al.  What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? An application to ecosystem service values , 2011 .

[42]  R. P. Stone,et al.  Coral habitat in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska: depth distribution, fine-scale species associations, and fisheries interactions , 2006, Coral Reefs.

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

[44]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Improving the Process of Valuing Non-Market Benefits: Combining Citizens’ Juries with Choice Modelling , 2006, Land Economics.

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

[46]  D. Campbell,et al.  Combining discrete and continuous mixing distributions to identify niche markets for food , 2013 .

[47]  Erlend Dancke Sandorf,et al.  Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos , 2016 .

[48]  Fredrik Carlsson,et al.  Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives , 2010 .

[49]  N. Hanley,et al.  Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches , 2002 .