An Analytical Framework for Joint vs Separate Decisions by Couples in Choice Experiments: The Case of Coastal Water Quality in Tobago

Adamowicz W, Hanemann M, Swait J, Johnson R, Layton D, Regenwetter M, Reimer T, Sorkin R (2005) Decision strategy and structure in households: A groups perspective. Mark Lett 16: 387–399

Arora N, Allenby G (1999) Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. J Mark Res 476–487

Bateman I, Munro A (2005) An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Econ J 115: 176–189

Becker G (1973) A theory of marriage: Part I. J Polit Econ 81: 813–846

Chiuri MC (2000) Individual decisions and household demand for consumption and leisure. Res Econ 54: 277–324

Dosman D, Adamowicz W (2006) Combining stated and revealed preference data to construct an empirical examination of intrahousehold bargaining. Rev Econ Househ 4: 15–34

Ferrini S, Scarpa R (2007) Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manage 53(3): 342–363

Greene W, Hensher D, Rose J (2005) Using classical simulation-based estimators to estimate individual WTP values. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, chapter 2. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 17–34

Haddad L, Hoddinot J, Alderman H (1997) Intra household resource allocation in developing countries: models, methods, and policy. Johns Hopkins, Washington, DC

Hensher DA, Rose JM, Black I (2008) Interactive agency choice in automobile purchase decisions: the role of negotiation in determining equilibrium choice outcomes. J Transp Econ Policy 42(2): 269–296

Huber J, Train K (2001) On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean partworths. Market Lett 12: 259–269

Kuhfeld WF (2004) Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint,and graphical techniques, Technical support document 694c. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA

Lampietti J (1999) Do husbands and wives make the same choices? Evidence from Northern Ethiopia. Econ Lett 62: 253–260

Myers DG, Lamm H (1976) The group polarization phenomenon. Psychol Bull 83: 602–627

Quiggin J (1998) Individual and household willingness to pay for public goods. Am J Agric Econ 80: 58–63

Rao V, Steckel J (1991) A polarization model for describing group preferences. J Consum Res Interdiscip Q 18: 108–118

Sándor Z, Wedel M (2001) Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers’ prior beliefs. J Mark Res 38: 430–444

Scarpa R, Rose JM (2008) Designs efficiency for nonmarket valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52: 253–282

Scarpa R, Campbell D, Hutchinson WG (2007) Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents rationality in a choice experiment study. Land Econ 83(4): 617–634

Scarpa R, Willis KG, Acutt M (2005) Individual-specific welfare measures for public goods: a latent class approach to residential customers of Yorkshire Water. In: Koundouri P (eds) Econometrics informing natural resource management, chapter 14. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Nottingham, MA, USA, pp 316–337

Smith V, Houtven GV (1998) Non-market valuation and the household. Discussion Paper 98-31, 1998 Resources for the future

Steckel J, O’Shaughnessy J (1989) Towards a new way to measure power: applying conjoint analysis to group decisions. Mark Lett 1(1): 37–46

Strand J (2007) Public-good valuation and intra-family allocation. Environ Resour Econ 38: 527–543

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

Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York

Vermeulen F (2002) Collective household models: principles and main results. J Econ Surv 16: 533–564