IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare01/125988.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing alternative questionnaire formats for communicating trade-offs in environmental Choice Modelling

Author

Listed:
  • van Bueren, Martin
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

Choice Modelling is a stated preference technique for valuing non-market goods. It has the potential to provide researchers with a rich data set with which to analyse consumer trade-offs between environmental, monetary and social impacts of resource management policies. However, this strength comes at the expense of greater questionnaire complexity relative to other stated preference techniques such as Contingent Valuation. This study examines whether communication aspects of the Choice Modelling questionnaires can be improved through the use of visual stimuli. Split-sample experiments are conducted to test response differences between a ‘scaled icons’ version of the questionnaire and a conventional ‘numbers-only’ version. It is found that the different questionnaire versions do not produce significant differences in response rate or preference structures.

Suggested Citation

  • van Bueren, Martin & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2001. "Testing alternative questionnaire formats for communicating trade-offs in environmental Choice Modelling," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125988, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare01:125988
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.125988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/125988/files/vanBueren1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.125988?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. Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2001. "Valuing Alternative Wetland Management Strategies using Choice Modelling," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 126063, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Nick Hanley & Gary Koop & Begoña Álvarez‐Farizo & Robert E. Wright & Ceara Nevin, 2001. "Go climb a mountain: an application of recreation demand modelling to rock climbing in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 36-52, January.
    3. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    4. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    5. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    6. Martin Van Bueren & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32, March.
    7. Alberini, Anna & Chiabai, Aline & Muehlenbachs, Lucija, 2005. "Using Expert Judgment to Assess Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change: Evidence From a Conjoint Choice Survey," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12216, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Deely, John & Hynes, Stephen, 2020. "Preferences for Blue-Green or Grey Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risk: A Choice Experiment," Working Papers 309506, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    10. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    11. Miao, Yiyuan & Swallow, Brent M. & Goddard, Ellen W. & Sheng, Jiping, 2024. "Enhancing the Validity of Stated Preference Consumer Surveys: A Cross-Cultural Choice Experiment on Dairy Milk and its Substitutes," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343830, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Thang Nam Do & Jeff Bennett, 2010. "Using Choice Experiments to Estimate Wetland Values in Viet Nam: Implementation and Practical Issues," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Blackwell, Melanie & Pagoulatos, Angelos & Hu, Wuyang & Auchter, Katharine, 2009. "Recreational Demand for Equestrian Trail-Riding," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-11, October.
    14. Neill Jon R., 2012. "Implications of a Weaker Form of Complementarity," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Ken Belcher & Andrea Germann & Josef Schmutz, 2007. "Beef with environmental and quality attributes: Preferences of environmental group and general population consumers in Saskatchewan, Canada," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 333-342, September.
    16. Chin†Huang Huang, 2017. "Estimating the environmental effects and recreational benefits of cultivated flower land for environmental quality improvement in Taiwan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 29-39, January.
    17. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    18. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2014. "Dynamic properties of the preferences for renewable energy sources – A wind power experience-based approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 542-551.
    19. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," MPRA Paper 38232, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Jose A. Algarra & María M. Ramos-Lorente & Paloma Cariñanos, 2024. "Is the Spanish Population Pro-Conservation or Pro-Utilitarian towards Threatened Flora? Social Analysis on the Willingness to Protect Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-34, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:aare01:125988. 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/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.