IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/een/eenhrr/1056.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Restricted versus unrestricted choice in labelled choice experiments: exploring the tradeoffs of expanding choice dimensions

Author

Listed:
  • Jill Windle

    (Faculty of Business and Informatics at Central Queensland University)

  • John Rolfe

    (Faculty of Business and Informatics at Central Queensland University Author-Homepage http://fbi.cqu.edu.au/FCWViewer/staff.do?site=1&sid=ROLFEJ)

Abstract

The main objective of the study outlined in this paper was to examine how the inclusion of an additional labelled alternative, to provide respondents with more choice in a stated preference survey, impacted on choice complexity. The valuation context was to elicit preferences for improvements in the future condition of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. A split sample experiment was implemented where one survey included four labeled alternatives: a status quo option and three specific policy management options (restricted choice). The other survey provided respondents with an unrestricted choice set by including a fifth alternative choice, labelled as “a combination of management options”. While the additional option improved opportunities to find an attractive choice profile, adding an extra alternative increased the complexity of the survey. The tradeoff between choice flexibility and complexity is examined in terms of changes in respondents’ choice behaviour and the performance of the different models. The results provide some evidence that adding a combination policy alternative did change the ways that respondents viewed tradeoffs, but that choice behaviour and subsequent value estimates were consistent across the two survey formats.

Suggested Citation

  • Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2010. "Restricted versus unrestricted choice in labelled choice experiments: exploring the tradeoffs of expanding choice dimensions," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1056, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    • Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR56.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger H. von Haefen & D. Matthew Massey & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 1061-1076.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. EERH Research Reports: June 2010
      by David Stern in Stochastic Trend on 2010-07-03 15:06:00

    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. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    3. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    4. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2009. "Public values for improved water security for domestic and environmental use," Research Reports 94818, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    5. Lawrence Goulder, 2007. "Distributional and Efficiency Impacts of Increased U.S. Gasoline Taxes," Discussion Papers 07-009, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    6. Tu, Gengyang & Faure, Corinne & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte, 2021. "The heat is off! The role of technology attributes and individual attitudes in the diffusion of Smart thermostats – findings from a multi-country survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    7. Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2011. "Communicating Ethical Arguments to Organic Consumers: A Study Across Five European Countries," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(3), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    9. Zheng Li, 2020. "Experimental Evidence on Socioeconomic Differences in Risk‐Taking and Risk Premiums," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 96(313), pages 140-152, June.
    10. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    11. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2016. "Local consequences of national policies - A spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-77.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    13. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    14. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2009. "Comparing responses from web and paper-based collection modes in a choice modelling experiment," Research Reports 94941, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    15. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    16. Thomas Lundhede & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Nick Hanley & Niels Strange & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2015. "Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 296-316.
    17. Ponce Oliva, Roberto D. & Vasquez-Lavín, Felipe & San Martin, Valeska A. & Hernández, José Ignacio & Vargas, Cristian A. & Gonzalez, Pablo S. & Gelcich, Stefan, 2019. "Ocean Acidification, Consumers' Preferences, and Market Adaptation Strategies in the Mussel Aquaculture Industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 42-50.
    18. Anna Bartczak & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2012. "Valuing the chances of survival of two distinct Eurasian lynx populations in Poland – do people want to keep doors open?," Working Papers 2012-14, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    20. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2010. "Comparing responses from web and paper-based collection modes in a choice modelling experiment," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59261, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choice complexity; choice modelling experiments; labelled alternatives; policy management options; multiple alternatives;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:een:eenhrr:1056. 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: CAP Web Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/asanuau.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.