Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?
Daniel Petrolia (),
Matthew G. Interis () and
Joonghyun Hwang ()
Additional contact information
Matthew G. Interis: Mississippi State University
Joonghyun Hwang: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Environmental & Resource Economics, 2018, vol. 69, issue 2, No 7, 365-393
Abstract This paper presents what we believe to be the most comprehensive suite of comparison criteria regarding multinomial discrete-choice experiment elicitation formats to date. We administer a choice experiment focused on ecosystem-service valuation to three independent samples: single-choice, repeated-choice, and best-worst scaling elicitation. We test whether results differ by parameter estimates, scale factors, preference heterogeneity, status-quo effects, attribute non-attendance, and magnitude and precision of welfare measures. Overall, we find limited evidence of differences in attribute parameter estimates, scale factors, and attribute increment values across elicitation treatments. However, we find significant differences in status-quo effects across elicitation treatments, with repeated-choice resulting in greater proportions of “action” votes, and consequently, higher program-level welfare estimates. Also, we find that single-choice yields drastically less-precise welfare estimates. Finally, we find some differences in attribute non-attendance behavior across elicitation formats, although there appears to be little consistency in class shares even within a given elicitation treatment.
Keywords: Best-worst scaling; Choice experiment; Contingent valuation; Ecosystem-service valuation; Stated preference; Survey; Willingness to pay (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-016-0083-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:enreec:v:69:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10640-016-0083-6
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... al/journal/10640/PS2
Access Statistics for this article
Environmental & Resource Economics is currently edited by Ian J. Bateman
More articles in Environmental & Resource Economics from Springer, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().