IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v63y2019i2p221-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed Yangui
  • Faical Akaichi
  • Montserrat Costa‐Font
  • José Maria Gil

Abstract

This study assesses the comparability of discrete choice experiment (DCE), ranking conjoint analysis (RCA) and multiprofile best–worst scaling (BWS) in a nonhypothetical context in terms of estimated partworths, willingness to pay (WTP), response consistency and external validity. Overall, the results suggest that: (i) the conjoint analysis formats that were used in this study provide similar estimated WTP, but different estimated partworths and computed external validity; (ii) the inclusion of the full ranking information in the estimation of the parameters of interest affects the estimated partworths, but not the estimated WTP; and (iii) it is more appropriate to use multiprofile BWS over DCE and RCA because it has better predictive power of consumers’ preferences and provides estimated WTP comparable to those obtained in the others conjoint analysis formats. The BWS’ cognitive process could be considered clearness for participants implying significant increment of its predictive power.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed Yangui & Faical Akaichi & Montserrat Costa‐Font & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), pages 221-246, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:63:y:2019:i:2:p:221-246
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8489.12292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12292
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-8489.12292?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Rose, John M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Bark, Rosalind H. & Pritchard, Jodie, 2019. "Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best-worst and referendum data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    2. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    3. Yan-Shiang Chiou & Pei-Ing Wu & Je-Liang Liou & Ta-Ken Huang & Chu-Wei Chen, 2023. "What Is the Willingness to Pay for a Basket of Agricultural Goods? Multi-Features of Organic, Animal Welfare-Based and Natural Products with No Additives," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ajarec:v:63:y:2019:i:2:p:221-246. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.