Design efficiency for non‐market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why*

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics - Tập 52 Số 3 - Trang 253-282 - 2008
Riccardo Scarpa1, John M. Rose2
1University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
2University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Tóm tắt

We review the basic principles for the evaluation of design efficiency in discrete choice modelling with a focus on efficiency of WTP estimates from the multinomial logit model. The discussion is developed under the realistic assumption that researchers can plausibly define a prior belief on the range of values for the utility coefficients. D‐, A‐, B‐, S‐ and C‐errors are compared as measures of design performance in applied studies and their rationale is discussed. An empirical example based on the generation and comparison of fifteen separate designs from a common set of assumptions illustrates the relevant considerations to the context of non‐market valuation, with particular emphasis placed on C‐efficiency. Conclusions are drawn for the practice of reporting in non‐market valuation and for future work on design research.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1006/jeem.1995.1019

10.1016/S1366-5545(02)00047-9

Bliemer M.C.J.andRose J.M.(2005).Efficiency and Sample Size Requirements for Stated Choice Studies working paper: ITLS‐WP‐05‐08.

Bliemer M.C.J.andRose J.M.(2006).Designing Stated Choice Experiments: State‐of‐the‐art Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research Kyoto Japan.

Bliemer M.C.J. Rose J.M.andHensher D.A.(in press).Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experiments Allowing for Differences in Error Variances Across Subsets of Alternatives Transportation Research Part B.

Brazell J.D.andLouviere J.J.(1998).Length effects in conjoint choice experiments and surveys: an explanation based on cumulative cognitive burden. Working Paper Department of Marketing The University of Sydney July.

10.2307/3147275

10.1016/j.jspi.2004.03.021

10.1016/j.trb.2004.07.006

Cook R.D., 1980, A comparison of algorithms for constructing exact D‐optimal designs, Techometrics, 22, 315, 10.1080/00401706.1980.10486162

10.1006/obhd.1995.1072

10.1006/jeem.2001.1199

10.1016/j.jeem.2006.10.007

Hensher D.A., 2004, Accounting for stated choice design dimensionality in willingness to pay for travel time savings, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38, 425

10.1007/s10640-005-3782-y

10.1002/jae.877

10.1016/S0969-6997(01)00031-X

10.1017/CBO9780511610356

10.1177/002224379603300305

10.2307/3146514

10.1006/jeem.1993.1029

10.1509/jmkr.39.2.214.19080

Kessels R., 2004, Comparing Algorithms and Criteria for Designing Bayesian Conjoint Choice Experiments

10.1509/jmkr.43.3.409

10.1017/CBO9780511753831

10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00761.x

McFadden D., 1974, Frontiers in Econometrics, 105

10.1023/A:1008139226934

10.1023/A:1008036829555

10.1509/jmkr.38.4.430.18904

10.1287/mksc.21.4.455.131

10.1509/jmkr.42.2.210.62285

10.3368/le.83.4.617

Scarpa R., 2005, Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, 247, 10.1007/1-4020-3684-1_13

Scarpa R. Thiene M.andTrain K.(in press).Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

10.1016/S0378-3758(02)00399-3

10.1081/STA-100106068

10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.003

10.2307/3172883

10.1287/mksc.1060.0244

10.1017/CBO9780511753930

10.1007/1-4020-3684-1_1

10.1023/A:1015063125062