Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.creatorPetrolia, Daniel
dc.creatorInteris, Matthew
dc.creatorHwang, Joonghyun
dc.date2017-04-01T20:08:38Z
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-09T09:53:31Z
dc.descriptionThis paper presents what we believe to be the most comprehensive suite of comparison criteria regarding multinomial discrete-choice experiment elicitation formats to date. We administer a choice experiment focused on ecosystem-service valuation to three independent samples: single-choice, repeated-choice, and best-worst elicitation. We test whether results differ by parameter estimates, scale factors, preference heterogeneity, status-quo/action bias, attribute non-attendance, and magnitude and precision of welfare measures. Overall, we find very limited evidence of differences in attribute parameter estimates, scale factors, and attribute increment values across elicitation treatments. However, we find significant differences in status-quo/action bias across elicitation treatments, with repeated-choice resulting in greater proportions of “Yes” votes, and consequently, higher program-level welfare estimates. Also, we find that single-choice yields drastically less-precise welfare estimates. Finally, we find significant differences in attribute non-attendance behavior across elicitation formats, although there appears to be little consistency in class shares even within a given elicitation treatment.
dc.identifierdoi:10.22004/ag.econ.212479
dc.identifierhttps://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212479/files/Qform_WP_Nov2015.pdf
dc.identifierhttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212479
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/613371
dc.languageeng
dc.publisher
dc.sourcehttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212479
dc.titleSingle-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?
dc.typeText

Archivos

Colecciones

University of Minnesota