Abstract
Using a choice experiment, this paper investigates how Swedish citizens value three environmental quality objectives. In addition, a follow-up question is used to investigate whether respondents ignored any attributes when responding. The resulting information is used in model estimation by restricting the individual parameters for the ignored attributes to zero. When taking the shares of respondents who took both the environmental and the cost attributes (52–69% of the respondents) into account, then the WTP for each attribute changes if the respondents who ignored the attributes have a zero WTP. At the same time, we find evidence that not all respondents who claimed to have ignored an attribute really did. However, the most commonly ignored non-monetary attributes always have the lowest rankings in terms of WTP across all three environmental objectives. Thus, our results show that instead of ignoring attributes completely, respondents seem to put less weight on the attributes they claimed to have ignored.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8: 83–110
Bunch D, Louviere J, Andersson D (1996) A comparison of experimental design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis with generic attribute multinomial logit models, Working Paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis
Campbell D, Hutchinson G, Scarpa R (2006) Lexicographic preferences in discrete choice experiments: consequences on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates, Working Paper Fondazione Eni Enrico Matei
Campbell D, Hutchinson G, Scarpa R (2008) Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 41(3): 101–117
Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2005) Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett 89: 147–152
Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2007) Preferences with and without prices—does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?. Environ Resour Econ 38: 155–164
Carlsson F, Kataria M (2008) Assessing management options for weed control with demanders and non-demanders in a choice experiment. Land Econ 84: 517–528
Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ 12: 281–294
Clinch J, Murphy P (2001) Modelling winners and losers in contingent valuation of public goods: appropriate welfare measures and econometric analysis. Econ J 111: 420–443
Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649–665
DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44: 123–143
DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2004) Implications of rationally-adaptive pre-choice behavior for the design and estimation of choice models, Working paper, School of Public Policy and Social Research, UCLA
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1998) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York
Greene W (2003) Econometric analysis. Prentice-Hall, London
Haab T (1999) Nonparticipation or misspecification? The impacts of nonparticipation on dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14: 443–461
Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W (2005) The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32: 203–222
Jonson FR, Desvousges WH (1997) Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manag 34: 79–99
Kataria M, Lampi E (2008) Betalningsvilja för miljökvalitetsmålen, Swedish EPA Report 5822, June 2008 (In Swedish).
Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79: 1013–1023
List J, Sinha P, Taylor M (2006) Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: Evidence from field experiments. Adv Econ Anal Policy 6: 1–37
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JUD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
McFadden DL, Bemmaor AC, Caro FG, Dominitz J, Jun BH, Lewbel A, Matzkin RL, Molinari F, Schwardz N, Willis RJ, Winter JK (2005) Statistical analysis of choice experiments and surveys. Mark Lett 16: 183–196
Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C
O’Hagan JW (1995) National museums: to charge or not to charge?. J Cult Econ 19: 33–47
Pearce D, Mourato S, Navrud S, Ready RC (2002) Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental techniques to historic buildings. In: Navrud S, Ready RC (eds) Monuments and artifacts. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., UK
Person U, Norinder A, Hjalte K, Gralén K (2001) The value of statistical life in transport: findings from a new contingent valuation study in Sweden. J Risk Uncertain 23: 121–134
Puckett S, Hensher D (2009) Revealing the Extent of Process Heterogeneity in Choice Analysis: An Empirical Assessment. Transport Res A 43: 117–126
Rizzi LI, de Dios Ortúzar J (2003) Stated preference in the valuation of interurban road safety. Accid Anal Prev 35: 9–22
Rosenberger RS, Peterson GL, Clarke A, Brown TC (2003) Measuring disposition for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics psychology and ethics. Ecol Econ 44: 63–76
SEPA (2006) Sweden’s 16 environmental objectives. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden
Sælensminde K (2001) Inconsistent choices in stated choice data. Transportation 28: 269–296
Sælensminde K (2002) The impact of choice inconsistencies in stated choice studies. Environ Resour Econ 23: 403–420
Scarpa R, Thiene M, Hensher D (2010) Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in non-market valuation of multiple park management services: does it matter? Land Econ 86(4)
Statistics Sweden (2008) The Swedish population, 1 January 2007, Homepage: http://www.scb.se (accessed February 2008)
Stevens TH, Echeverria J, Glass RJ, Hager T, More TA (1991) Measuring the existence of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show?. Land Econ 67(4): 390–400
Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carlsson, F., Kataria, M. & Lampi, E. Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives. Environ Resource Econ 47, 65–89 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9365-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9365-6