IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/earnsa/343510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Device effects: Results from choice experiments in an agritourism context

Author

Listed:
  • Tavárez, Héctor
  • Cortés, Mildred

Abstract

[EN] This study uses a questionnaire to examine device use effects in choice experiments and to estimate willingness to pay (WTP) values for agritourism-related activities. The results indicate that respondents using devices with large screens are more confident of their responses, dedicate more time to the valuation exercise, and select the status quo option less frequently. However, WTP for agritourism and perceived choice experiment complexity are invariant with regards to the device. Respondents’ WTP for selected agritourism activities varies from $5 to $21 per visit. [ES] Utilizamos un cuestionario para examinar los efectos del uso de dispositivos en los experimentos de elección y estimar la disposición a pagar (DAP) por actividades relacionadas con el agroturismo. Los resultados indican que los encuestados que utilizan dispositivos con pantallas grandes tienen más confianza en sus respuestas, dedican más tiempo al ejercicio de valoración y seleccionan con menos frecuencia la opción de statu quo. Sin embargo, la DAP por agroturismo y la percepción sobre la complejidad del experimento de elección son invariantes con respecto al dispositivo. La DAP por las actividades de agroturismo seleccionadas varía de $5 a $21 por visita.

Suggested Citation

  • Tavárez, Héctor & Cortés, Mildred, 2024. "Device effects: Results from choice experiments in an agritourism context," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 24(1), June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:343510
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.343510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/343510/files/EARN_24_1_5-27.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.343510?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Revelt and Kenneth Train., 2000. "Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households' Choice of Electricity Supplier," Economics Working Papers E00-274, University of California at Berkeley.
    2. Lucia Rocchi & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2022. "Assessing Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Landscape Attributes in Lithuania," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Tong Wu & Shida Rastegari Henneberry & John N. Ng’ombe & Richard T. Melstrom, 2020. "Chinese Demand for Agritourism in Rural America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-11, April.
    4. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2018. "Consequences of Participant Inattention with an Application to Carbon Taxes for Meat Products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 218-230.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Allais, Olivier & Etilé, Fabrice & Lecocq, Sébastien, 2015. "Mandatory labels, taxes and market forces: An empirical evaluation of fat policies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 27-44.
    2. Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, 2020. "Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(1), March.
    3. Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Jorien Veldwijk & Marcel F. Jonker & Sylvia Buis & Jan Huisman & Patrick Bindels, 2021. "What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 269-281, March.
    4. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Taylor, Rebecca & Krovetz, Hannah, 2016. "Willingness to Pay for Low Water Footprint Food Choices During Drought," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9vh3x180, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    5. Ricardo A. Daziano, 2022. "A choice experiment assessment of stated early response to COVID-19 vaccines in the USA," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Schuster, Monica & Vranken, Liesbet & Maertens, Miet, 2017. "You Can(’t) Always Get the Job You Want: Stated versus Revealed Employment Preferences in the Peruvian Agro-industry," Working Papers 254076, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    7. Johannes Geyer & Thorben Korfhage, 2015. "Long‐term Care Insurance and Carers' Labor Supply – A Structural Model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1178-1191, September.
    8. Stephane Hess & John W. Polak, 2004. "An analysis of parking behaviour using discrete choice models calibrated on SP datasets," ERSA conference papers ersa04p60, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Michael Moutoussis & Raymond J Dolan & Peter Dayan, 2016. "How People Use Social Information to Find out What to Want in the Paradigmatic Case of Inter-temporal Preferences," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Anciaes, Paulo & Jones, Peter, 2020. "A comprehensive approach for the appraisal of the barrier effect of roads on pedestrians," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 227-250.
    12. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.
    13. Mauricio Sarrias, 2020. "Random Parameters and Spatial Heterogeneity using Rchoice in R," REGION, European Regional Science Association, vol. 7, pages 1-19.
    14. Masiero, Lorenzo & Rose, John M., 2013. "The role of the reference alternative in the specification of asymmetric discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 83-92.
    15. Drake, Coleman, 2019. "What are consumers willing to pay for a broad network health plan?: Evidence from covered California," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 63-77.
    16. Krueger, Rico & Bierlaire, Michel & Daziano, Ricardo A. & Rashidi, Taha H. & Bansal, Prateek, 2021. "Evaluating the predictive abilities of mixed logit models with unobserved inter- and intra-individual heterogeneity," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2016. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Locally Grown Produce: Comparison of New Hampshire and Massachusetts Results," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236109, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Vaiknoras, Kate & Norton, George & Alwang, Jeffrey, 2015. "Farmer preferences for attributes of conservation agriculture in Uganda," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16.
    19. Collet, Charles & Gastineau, Pascal & Chèze, Benoît & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Martinez, Frédéric, 2023. "Combining economics and psychology: Does CO2 framing strengthen pro-environmental behaviors?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    20. Tomasz Gajderowicz & Maciej Jakubowski & Sylwia Wrona & Ghadah Alkhadim, 2023. "Is students’ teamwork a dreamwork? A new DCE-based multidimensional approach to preferences towards group work," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:343510. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.