The Effect of Consumers’ Real-World Choice Sets on Inferences from Stated Preference Surveys

Abstract

Conjoint choice, Stated preference, Choice sets, Random utility models, Omitted substitutes, Q51, Q26, C25, C42, C51,

Random Regret Minimization: Exploration of a New Choice Model for Environmental and Resource Economics

“…Researchers in this field have been using discrete choice modelling of revealed and stated preference data to estimate the value of (or willingness to pay for) attributes of environmental goods and services or to predict welfare changes due to the implementation of specific policy options providing different mixes of such goods and services. This literature includes, among others, applications on land use preferences Johnston and Duke, 2007;Meyerhoff et al, 2010), on recreation demand (Hanley et al, 2002;Bullock et al, 1998;Scarpa and Thiene, 2005;Herriges and Phaneuf, 2002;Morey et al, 2006;Thiene and Scarpa, 2008) and on preferences for developing tourism (Hearne and Salinas, 2002;DeShazo et al, 2009). …”

Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments

“…The exclusion of relevant substitutes in the choice set may bias parameter estimates and inflate WTP values (DeShazo et al, 2009). In choice studies across (goods provided at) different locations, the number of available alternative sites may be large.…”