Handling respondent uncertainty in Choice Experiments: Evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modelling of uncertainty

Abstract Using data from two Choice Experiment environmental valuation surveys we investigate several different ways of handling respondent uncertainty. In both surveys respondents are asked to state their certainty of choice after each single choice set. We evaluate three different recoding-of-answers methods adapted from the Contingent Valuation literature. Furthermore, we evaluate two models which directly capture the effect of respondent uncertainty by parameterization of a scale function. In one model the scale parameter is a function of respondents' stated uncertainty level. In the other it is a function of respondent and choice set characteristics found to be significant determinants of stated uncertainty. All approaches are compared to a benchmark utility model. While some of the recoding approaches apparently reduce noise in the data, they generally have no significant effect on attribute Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) estimates, and standard errors on WTP estimates tend to increase. The explicit modelling of the scale parameter using stated uncertainty reveals that unobserved variation decreases as certainty of choice increases. While the model performance does not improve much, this approach offers a structurally and intuitively much more appealing way of accounting for uncertainty in choices in CE.

[1]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Bounded Distributions of Correlated Partworths , 2005 .

[2]  A. Daly,et al.  Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data , 1994 .

[3]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[4]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Combining sources of preference data , 1998 .

[5]  George Van Houtven,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data to Estimate the Nonmarket Value of Ecological Services: An Assessment of the State of the Science , 2008 .

[6]  Jette Bredahl Jacobsen,et al.  What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity , 2008 .

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

[8]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .

[9]  D. McFadden,et al.  URBAN TRAVEL DEMAND - A BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS , 1977 .

[10]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2008 .

[11]  J. Swait,et al.  The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching , 2001 .

[12]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. , 2007, Health economics.

[13]  K. Sælensminde,et al.  Inconsistent choices in Stated Choice data;Use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases , 2001 .

[14]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit , 2007 .

[15]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach , 1998 .

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

[17]  Søren Bøye Olsen,et al.  Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods , 2009 .

[18]  Margaret F. Barton Conditional Logit Analysis of FCC Decisionmaking , 1979 .

[19]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[20]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty , 2003 .

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

[22]  Hua Wang,et al.  Treatment of “Don't-Know” Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model , 1997 .

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

[24]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction , 1990 .

[25]  D. Hensher,et al.  Using stated response choice data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models , 1993 .

[26]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Relaxing the IID assumption – introducing variants of the MNL model , 2000 .

[27]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[28]  M. Bierlaire,et al.  ESTIMATION OF VALUE OF TRAVEL-TIME SAVINGS USING MIXED LOGIT MODELS , 2005 .

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

[30]  T. Stevens,et al.  A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation , 2006 .

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

[32]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[33]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[34]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[35]  Wuyang Hu,et al.  Labeling Context and Reference Point Effects in Models of Food Attribute Demand , 2006 .

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

[37]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[38]  V. Smith,et al.  Recreation Demand Models , 2005 .

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

[40]  K. Train,et al.  Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles , 1999, Controlling Automobile Air Pollution.

[41]  K. Willis,et al.  Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments , 2007 .

[42]  M. Thiene,et al.  Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods , 2008 .

[43]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses , 1999 .

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

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

[46]  Erik Meijer,et al.  Measuring Welfare Effects in Models with Random Coefficients , 2000 .

[47]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  An exploratory analysis of the effect of numbers of choice sets in designed choice experiments: an airline choice application , 2001 .

[48]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl , 1998 .

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

[50]  D. Campbell Identication and analysis of discontinuous preferences in discrete choice experiments , 2008 .

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

[52]  K. Train Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People , 1998 .

[53]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods , 1997 .

[54]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis , 2004 .

[55]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent , 1995 .

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

[57]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research , 1995 .

[58]  Leif Mattsson,et al.  Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. , 1995 .