A stated preference analysis comparing the Analytical Hierarchy Process versus Choice Experiments

Kallas, Zein; Lambarraa, Fatima; Gil, José M.

doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.09.010

Cited by 49 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Treatment of the opt out alternative can be broadly categorised into two distinct approaches: specify an opt out such that the respondent is able to designate none of the alternatives as ones they would choose (see for example Kallas et al 2011 andLouviere et al 2001) or; specify the opt out alternative as a no opinion, or a position of indifference between the competing attributes (see for example Balcombe andFraser 2011 andFenichel et al 2009). The role of opt outs within RUM has been an area of exploration for some time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasts between utility maximisation and regret minimisation in the presence of opt out alternatives

Hess

Beck

Chorus

2014

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of studies of choice behaviour are looking at random regret minimisation (RRM) as an alternative to the well established random utility maximisation (RUM) framework. Empirical evidence tends to show small differences in performance between the two approaches, with the implied preference between the models being dataset specific. In the present paper, we discuss how in the context of choice tasks involving an opt out alternative, the differences are potentially more clear cut. Specifically, we hypothesise that when opt out alternatives are framed as a rejection of all the available alternatives, this is likely to have a detrimental impact on the performance of RRM, while the performance of RUM suffers more when the opt out is framed as a respondent being indifferent between the alternatives on offer. We provide empirical support for these hypotheses through two case studies, using the two different types of opt out alternatives. Our findings suggest that analysts need to carefully evaluate their choice of model structure in the presence of opt out alternatives, while any a priori preference for a given model structure should be taken into account in survey framing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasts between utility maximisation and regret minimisation in the presence of opt out alternatives

Hess

Beck

Chorus

2014

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among these methods, we recognise five possibilities: (1) opinion surveys; (2) the use of proxies to estimate consumers' preferences; (3) consensus methods (focus groups, public juries, interviews, Delphi method); (4) monetary valuation; and (5) multicriteria techniques. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP), a multicriteria technique, has been used to assess individual preferences following a hierarchical structure (Kallas, Lambarraa, & Gil, 2011;Ramanathan & Ganesh, 1994;Scholl, Manthey, Helm, & Steiner, 2005;Sedef, Bülent, & Canan, 2007). The AHP allows a search to be conducted to determine the relative importance placed on the product attributes and attribute levels of the complex goods analysed.…”

Section: Introduction and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have compared individual preferences and decisions using the AHP with valuation methods based on conjoint analysis (CA) and choice experiments (CE) (Colombo et al, 2009;Kallas et al, 2011;Malvinas, Mangkoesubroto, Suryadi, & Yudhistira, 2005;Meißner, Scholz, & Decker, 2007;Moran, McVittie, Allcroft, & Elston, 2007;Perini, Ricca, & Susi, 2009;Scholz, Meißner, & Wagner, 2005;Yudhistira, 2004). These studies show qualitative convergence in the preferences for attributes and attribute levels and their corresponding rankings.…”

Section: Introduction and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, the willingness to pay (WTP) for the product attributes and attribute levels cannot be derived if only the AHP method is used. Moreover, the coefficients (from CE econometric modelling) and weights (from the AHP) cannot be directly compared in a quantitative way (Colombo et al, 2009;Kallas et al, 2011) because preferences are measured on different scales.…”

Section: Introduction and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Combining contingent valuation with the analytical hierarchy process to decompose the value of rabbit meat

Kallas

Gil

2012

Food Quality and Preference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In our case, the range has been limited from 1 to 5, following other previous research (UNEP, 2013;Dawes et al, 2008;Kallas et al, 2011). In our approach, the number of KPIs given per category for the traditionally most important categories (Cost, Space, and Energy) is limited to three, to adjust the relative importance of the subcategories.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchy based information requirements for sustainable operations of buildings in Qatar

Rodriguez-Trejo

Ahmad

Hafeez

et al. 2017

Sustainable Cities and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information flows in construction projects are generally focussed on the needs of the design and construction phases. This creates disruption of workflows across the project stages and in particular with the information handover to the operation stage. The adherence to client requirements for the operation phase of buildings becomes very challenging. A structured information delivery enabled by BIM protocols, established at the project's inception phase, can help: 1. prevent information loss during the project development; 2. ensure the coordinated delivery of the clients' requirements as stated at the pre-design stage, and 3. anticipate the impact of client decisions at early project stages on the operational performance of buildings. This research presents a methodology and a decision support system to help obtaining, categorizing and trading off sustainability and facility management values using subjective driven priorities from top-level management. The decision support system will assist, within digitally enabled projects, in translating these priorities into objective parameters and information categories. These can be subsequently included within the project tender and bidders' BIM Execution Plans. The tool will also help to monitor the performance of the project design with the national sustainability and the client targets as the project progresses. The proposed tool is presented within the context of Qatar but it could be applied in other countries.

show abstract

A stated preference analysis comparing the Analytical Hierarchy Process versus Choice Experiments

Cited by 49 publications

References 36 publications

Contrasts between utility maximisation and regret minimisation in the presence of opt out alternatives

Contrasts between utility maximisation and regret minimisation in the presence of opt out alternatives

Combining contingent valuation with the analytical hierarchy process to decompose the value of rabbit meat

Hierarchy based information requirements for sustainable operations of buildings in Qatar

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About