Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments are increasingly used in the context of environmental valuation. However, there is still little known about the influence of the complexity of the choice task on model outcomes. In this paper we investigate task complexity in terms of the design dimensionality of the choice experiment by systematically varying the number of choice sets, alternatives, attributes, and levels as well as the level range. We largely follow a Design of Designs approach originally introduced in transportation. First, we analyse the influence of the design dimensionality on participants’ dropout behaviour finding that the probability to drop-out of the survey is influenced by socio-demographic characteristics and increases with the number of choice sets, attributes as well as with designs having five alternatives. Second, we investigate the impact of the design dimensions on stated choices by estimating a multinomial logit model, and heteroskedastic logit models. Results show that the error term variance is influenced by socio-demographic characteristics as well as by all design dimensions. Moreover, we find that accounting for the impact of the design dimension on the error variance does not significantly change willingness to pay estimates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arentze T, Borgers A, Timmermans H, DelMistro R (2003) Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy. Transp Res Part E 39:229–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J (2011) Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 28(3):273–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Moon A (2009) Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Aust J Agr Resour Econ 53:503–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley M, Daly A (1994) Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data. Transportation 21:167–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Dekker T, Rolfe J, Windle J (2010) Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environ Res Econ 46:93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) (2010) Der Indikatorenbericht 2010 zur Nationalen Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt. Berlin

  • Carlssona F, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB (2012) The first time is the hardest: a test of ordering effects in choice experiments. J Choice Modell 5:19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caussade S, Ortúzar J, Rizzi LI, Hensher DA (2005) Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transp Res Part B 39:621–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintakayala PK, Hess S, Rose JM, Wardman M (2010) Effects of stated choice design dimensions on model estimates. In: Hess S, Daly A (eds) Choice modelling: state-of-the-art and the state-of practice. Proceedings from the inaugural international choice modelling conference. Emerald Press, Bingley

  • Czajkowski M, Giergiczny M, Greene WH (2014) Learning and fatigue effects revisited. The impact of accounting for unobservable preference and scale heterogeneity on perceived ordering effects in multiple choice task discrete choice experiments. Land Econ 90:324–351

  • Chung C, Boyer T, Han S (2011) How many choice sets and alternatives are optimal? Consistency in choice experiments. Agribusiness 27:114–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert B, Brazell J, Louviere JJ (1999) The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency. Market Lett 10:139–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert B, Donkers B, van Soest A (2012) Complexity effects in choice experiment-based models. J Mark Res 49:424–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manage 44:123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galesic M (2006) Dropouts on the Web: effects of interest and burden experienced during an online survey. J Off Stat 22:313–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiner R (1983) The origin of predictable behaviour. Am Econ Rev 73:560–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Stopher PA, Louviere JJ (2001) An exploratory analysis of the effect of numbers of choice sets in designed choice experiments: an airline choice application. J Air Transp Manage 7:373–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (2004) Identifying the influence of stated choice design dimensionality on willingness to pay for travel time savings. J Transp Econ Policy 38:425–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (2006) Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assessment. Environ Resour Econ 34:7–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess S, Hensher DA, Daly A (2012) Not bored yet—revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments. Transportation research part A, pp. 626–644

  • Hoerger M (2010) Participant dropout as a function of survey length in internet-mediated university studies: implications for study design and voluntary participation in psychological research. Cyberpsychol Behav Social Netw 13:697–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hole AR (2006) Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model. Econ Bull 3:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Carson RT, Burgess I, Street D, Marley AAJ (2013) Sequential preference questions factors influencing completion rates and response time using online panel. J Choice Modell 8:19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Islam T, Wasi N, Street D, Burgess LB (2008) Designing discrete choice experiments: do optimal designs come at a price? J Consumer Res 35:360–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods. Analysis and Application, Cambgridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McNair BJ, Bennett J, Hensher DA (2011) A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions. Resour Energy Econ 33:554–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poe GL, Welsh MP, Champ PA (1997) Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Econ 73:255–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe J, Longworth L (2002) Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18:139–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, Bennett J (2009) The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments. Ecol Econ 68:1140–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose JM, Hensher DA, Caussade S, Ortúzar J, Jou R-C (2009) Identifying differences in willingness to pay due to dimensionality in stated choice experiments: a cross country analysis. J Transp Geogr 17:21–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M, Wordsworth S (2000) Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to the level of attributes in discrete choice experiments. Scott J Political Econ 47:504–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa R, Notaro S, Louviere J, Raffaelli R (2011) Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in Alpine grazing commons. Am J Agric Econ 93:813–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa R, Rose JM (2008) Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust J Agric Res Econ 52:253–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swait JD, Adamowicz WL (2001) Choice environment, market complexity and consumer behaviour: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 86:141–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res 30:305–314

  • Vicente P, Reis E (2010) Using questionnaire design to fight nonresponse bias in web surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev 28:251–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am Econ J Microecon 4:145–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Adamowicz WL (2011) Unravelling the choice format effect: a context-dependent random utility model. Land Econ 87:730–743

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their very valuable comments. Also we would like to thank Helen Lauff (Link-Institut) for her advice and patience while implementing our Design of Designs approach in the survey software. Funding for this research was provided by the Federal German Ministry of Education and Research (Fkz. 033L029G; Fkz 01LL0909A) and is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Landscape and Environmental Planning, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 145, 10623 , Berlin, Germany

    Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann

  2. Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Institute for International Forestry and Forest Economics, Leuschnerstraße 91, 21031 , Hamburg, Germany

    Priska Weller

Authors
  1. Jürgen Meyerhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Malte Oehlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Priska Weller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jürgen Meyerhoff.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Tables 11, 12 and 13.

Table 11 Attribute levels for designs with two levels
Full size table
Table 12 Attribute levels for designs with three levels
Full size table
Table 13 Attribute levels for designs with four levels
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Tables 14 and 15.

Table 14 Linear regression number of drop-outs and design dimensions
Full size table
Table 15 Heteroskedastic logit with order effects \(\mathrm{CS}_{2}-\mathrm{CS}_{24}\)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meyerhoff, J., Oehlmann, M. & Weller, P. The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context. Environ Resource Econ 61, 385–407 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9797-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9797-5

Keywords