Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain

Published Date

Author Info

• Oviedo, José L.
• Caparrós, Alejandro

Abstract

We test convergent validity of contingent valuation and choice modeling with field and eye-tracker data in an application for stone pine reforestations. Field results yield significantly different structural models and higher willingness to pay values in choice modeling. Eye-tracker results show that respondents devote relatively more time to attributes and the bid in choice modeling and that there are no significant differences in the total time used to answer. Divergences remain for modified formats that minimize visual and cognitive differences between methods. Using an attribute-stimulus format in contingent valuation or including dominant alternatives in choice modeling does not change results.

References

1. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November. 
   •  Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
   •  Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2.
2.  Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
3. Akaichi, Faiçal & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Gil, Jose Maria, 2012. "Are Results from Non-Hypothetical Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis and Non-Hypothetical Recoded-Ranking Conjoint Analysis Similar?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124783, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. 
   •  Faical Akaichi & Rodolfo M. Nayga & José M. Gil, 2013. "Are Results from Non-hypothetical Choice-based Conjoint Analyses and Non-hypothetical Recoded-ranking Conjoint Analyses Similar?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(4), pages 949-963.
4.  Ovando, Paola & Campos, Pablo & Calama, Rafael & Montero, Gregorio, 2010. "Landowner net benefit from Stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) afforestation of dry-land cereal fields in Valladolid, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 83-100, April.
5.  Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
6.  Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models,"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
7.  Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
8.  Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
9.  Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381. 
   • Jonathan E. Alevy & John List & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2010. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Non-Market Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," NBER Working Papers 16036, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
   • Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2010. "How can Behavioral Economics Inform Non-Market Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Working Papers 2010-08, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
   • John List & Jonathan Alevy & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "How can behavioral economics inform non-market valuation? An example from the preference reversal literature,"Artefactual Field Experiments 00002, The Field Experiments Website.
10.  Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models,"Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
11.  Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach,"Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.
12.  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.
13.  Daniel T. Knoepfle & Joseph Tao-yi Wang & Colin F. Camerer, 2009. "Studying Learning in Games Using Eye-Tracking," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 388-398, 04-05.
14.  Hoehn, John P. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2010. "Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), December.
15.  Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), October.
16.  Varela, Elsa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Giergiczny, Marek & Riera, Pere & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Testing the single opt-out reminder in choice experiments: An application to fuel break management in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 212-222.
17.  Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
18.  Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
19.  Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
20.  Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos, 2008. "Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 843-855.
21. A. Caparrós & E. Cerdá & P. Ovando & P. Campos, 2007. "Carbon Sequestration with Reforestations and Biodiversity-Scenic Values," Working Papers 2007.28, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. 
    •  Alejandro Caparrós & Emilio Cerdá & Paola Ovando & Pablo Campos, 2010. "Carbon Sequestration with Reforestations and Biodiversity-scenic Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 49-72, January.
22.  Krawczyk, Michał, 2012. "Testing for hypothetical bias in willingness to support a reforestation program," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 282-289.
23.  Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
24.  Mike Christie & Christopher D. Azevedo, 2009. "Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 154-170.
25.  Magat, Wesley A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Huber, Joel, 1988. "Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 395-411, December.
26.  Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
27.  Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing,"American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
28.  Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
29.  David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
30.  Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
31.  Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.

Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


For further details log on website :
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v21y2015i4p185-204.html