IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sss/wpaper/2016-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Giving respondents “time to think” reduces response randomness in repeated discrete choice tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Börger

    (Department of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St. Andrews)

  • Joseph Cook

    (Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington, Seattle, USA)

Abstract

Quantifying the monetary value of ecosystem services provided by coastal and marine resources can help policy makers assess the trade-offs and synergies inherent in ecosystem -based management of marine and coastal environments, thus increasing the social efficiency of decision-making processes. As shown by the valuation literature, the number of coastal and marine management settings where valuation researchers have attempted to make a contribution is rising fast. However, this rise in research activity has not been matched by the increase in the use of economic valuation (EV) in the actual management of coastal and marine resources. This raises an interesting question: is EV responding to the needs of policy makers? This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the knowledg e base regarding the economic values for coastal and marine ecosystems. It then discusses how to improve the uptake of ES valuation research by focussing on two core issues which are thought to be essential for more effective communication with the policy community.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Börger & Joseph Cook, 2016. "Giving respondents “time to think” reduces response randomness in repeated discrete choice tasks," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-13, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    • Handle: RePEc:sss:wpaper:2016-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/dept-of-geography-and-sustainable-development/pdf-s/DP%202016-13%20Borger%20&%20Cook.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Kądziela, Tadeusz & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "We want to sort! Assessing households’ preferences for sorting waste," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 290-306.
    2. 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.
    3. Colombo, Sergio & Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? Implications for ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 25-35.
    4. Joseph Cook & Marc Jeuland & Brian Maskery & Dale Whittington, 2012. "Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 473-496, April.
    5. Joseph Cook & Dale Whittington & Do Gia Canh & F. Reed Johnson & Andrew Nyamete, 2007. "Reliability Of Stated Preferences For Cholera And Typhoid Vaccines With Time To Think In Hue, Vietnam," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 100-114, January.
    6. Hess, Stephane & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2013. "Linking response quality to survey engagement: A combined random scale and latent variable approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
    8. Beck, Matthew J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2013. "Consistently inconsistent: The role of certainty, acceptability and scale in choice," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-93.
    9. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    10. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    11. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2013. "The Effects of Experience on Preference Uncertainty: Theory and Empirics for Public and Quasi-Public Environmental Goods," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2013-11, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    12. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, January.
    13. Riccardo Scarpa & Raffaele Zanoli & Viola Bruschi & Simona Naspetti, 2013. "Inferred and Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Food Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 165-180.
    14. Brown, Thomas C. & Kingsley, David & Peterson, George L. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Clarke, Andrea & Birjulin, Andrej, 2008. "Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 1595-1606, July.
    15. Uggeldahl, Kennet & Jacobsen, Catrine & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2016. "Choice certainty in Discrete Choice Experiments: Will eye tracking provide useful measures?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 35-48.
    16. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    17. Islam, Ziaul & Maskery, Brian & Nyamete, Andrew & Horowitz, Mark S. & Yunus, Mohammad & Whittington, Dale, 2008. "Private demand for cholera vaccines in rural Matlab, Bangladesh," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 184-195, February.
    18. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    20. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    21. John Rose & Iain Black, 2006. "Means matter, but variance matter too: Decomposing response latency influences on variance heterogeneity in stated preference experiments," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 295-310, December.
    22. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    23. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    24. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    25. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    26. Yuanyuan Gu & Arne Risa Hole & Stephanie Knox, 2013. "Fitting the generalized multinomial logit model in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(2), pages 382-397, June.
    27. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    28. Joseph Cook, 2007. "Reliability Of Stated Preferences For Cholera And Typhoid Vaccines With Time To Think In Hue, Vietnam," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp200701s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jan 2007.
    29. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    30. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, 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. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    2. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    3. Enni Ruokamo & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Artti Juutinen & Rauli Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Working Papers 2016-30, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Paul Hindsley & Craig E. Landry & Kurt Schnier & John C. Whitehead & Mohammadreza Zarei, 2021. "Joint Estimation of Revealed Preference Site Selection and Stated Preference Choice Experiment Recreation Data Considering Attribute NonAttendance," Working Papers 21-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    5. Shr, Yau-Huo & Ready, Richard C. & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2017. "Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258397, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Mariel, Petr & Artabe, Alaitz, 2020. "Interpreting correlated random parameters in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Campbell, Danny & Boeri, Marco & Doherty, Edel & George Hutchinson, W., 2015. "Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 345-363.
    8. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Campbell, Danny & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2018. "The link between response time and preference, variance and processing heterogeneity in stated choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 18-34.
    10. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa & Jordan Louviere, 2015. "Addressing Preference Heterogeneity, Multiple Scales and Attribute Attendance with a Correlated Finite Mixing Model of Tap Water Choice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 637-656, November.
    11. Sandra Notaro & Maria De Salvo & Roberta Raffaelli, 2022. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Alpine Pastures: A Discrete Choice Experiment Accounting for Attribute Non-Attendance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Barczak, Anna & Budziński, Wiktor & Giergiczny, Marek & Hanley, Nick, 2016. "Preference and WTP stability for public forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 11-22.
    15. Ozdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Whittington, Dale, 2016. "Ideology, public goods and welfare valuation: An experiment on allocating government budgets," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 61-72.
    16. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Ready, Richard & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2019. "How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 375-386.
    18. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    19. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Campbell, Danny & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Disentangling the influence of knowledge on attribute non-attendance," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 36-50.
    20. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu, 2023. "Integrating a Pareto-Distributed Scale into the Mixed Logit Model: A Mathematical Concept," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choice experiment; time to think; generalized multinomial logit; scale factor; Vietnam;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics
    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:sss:wpaper:2016-13. 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: Laure Kuhfuss (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eestauk.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.