选择实验中呈现形式的影响

Murwirapachena, Genius, Dikgang, Johane
{"title":"选择实验中呈现形式的影响","authors":"Murwirapachena, Genius, Dikgang, Johane","doi":"10.1007/s10018-021-00328-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although stated-preference surveys take various forms, the use of either text or visuals to represent attributes is uncontroversial and remain commonly used. While prior research has investigated the impact of these formats in other disciplines, little is known about their effects in terms of relative importance in environmental economics. We conduct surveys on households’ preferences for water efficient technologies in South Africa, where we compare three presentation formats, namely text, visuals, and both text and visuals. Survey data collected from 894 households in the Gauteng Province are analysed using the mixed-logit model to test whether these three formats generate differences in estimated utilities and marginal willingness-to-pay (MWTP). This research sheds light on how to develop a valid presentation method for attribute levels in choice experiments, which is critical considering most environmental economics goods and services are not traded in the market. Our results obtained from the various presentation methods differ. There were also differences in MWTP estimates between the three groups. This suggests that the presentation format has significant impacts on choice. Thus, more research on presentation formats in environmental economics is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":46150,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of presentation formats in choice experiments\",\"authors\":\"Murwirapachena, Genius, Dikgang, Johane\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10018-021-00328-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Although stated-preference surveys take various forms, the use of either text or visuals to represent attributes is uncontroversial and remain commonly used. While prior research has investigated the impact of these formats in other disciplines, little is known about their effects in terms of relative importance in environmental economics. We conduct surveys on households’ preferences for water efficient technologies in South Africa, where we compare three presentation formats, namely text, visuals, and both text and visuals. Survey data collected from 894 households in the Gauteng Province are analysed using the mixed-logit model to test whether these three formats generate differences in estimated utilities and marginal willingness-to-pay (MWTP). This research sheds light on how to develop a valid presentation method for attribute levels in choice experiments, which is critical considering most environmental economics goods and services are not traded in the market. Our results obtained from the various presentation methods differ. There were also differences in MWTP estimates between the three groups. This suggests that the presentation format has significant impacts on choice. Thus, more research on presentation formats in environmental economics is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-021-00328-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-021-00328-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

尽管陈述偏好调查有多种形式,但使用文本或视觉来表示属性是没有争议的,并且仍然是常用的。虽然先前的研究已经调查了这些格式在其他学科中的影响,但就环境经济学的相对重要性而言,它们的影响知之甚少。我们对南非家庭对节水技术的偏好进行了调查,比较了三种呈现形式,即文本、视觉和文本和视觉。从豪登省894户家庭收集的调查数据使用混合logit模型进行分析,以测试这三种格式是否会产生估计效用和边际支付意愿(MWTP)的差异。本研究揭示了如何在选择实验中开发属性水平的有效表示方法,考虑到大多数环境经济学产品和服务不在市场上交易,这是至关重要的。我们用不同的呈现方法得到的结果不同。三组之间的MWTP估计值也存在差异。这表明演示格式对选择有显著影响。因此,有必要对环境经济学的表述形式进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The effects of presentation formats in choice experiments

Although stated-preference surveys take various forms, the use of either text or visuals to represent attributes is uncontroversial and remain commonly used. While prior research has investigated the impact of these formats in other disciplines, little is known about their effects in terms of relative importance in environmental economics. We conduct surveys on households’ preferences for water efficient technologies in South Africa, where we compare three presentation formats, namely text, visuals, and both text and visuals. Survey data collected from 894 households in the Gauteng Province are analysed using the mixed-logit model to test whether these three formats generate differences in estimated utilities and marginal willingness-to-pay (MWTP). This research sheds light on how to develop a valid presentation method for attribute levels in choice experiments, which is critical considering most environmental economics goods and services are not traded in the market. Our results obtained from the various presentation methods differ. There were also differences in MWTP estimates between the three groups. This suggests that the presentation format has significant impacts on choice. Thus, more research on presentation formats in environmental economics is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies and the official journal of the Asian Association of Environmental and Resource Economics, it provides an international forum for debates among diverse disciplines such as environmental economics, environmental policy studies, and related fields. The main purpose of the journal is twofold: to encourage (1) integration of theoretical studies and policy studies on environmental issues and (2) interdisciplinary works of environmental economics, environmental policy studies, and related fields on environmental issues. The journal also welcomes contributions from any discipline as long as they are consistent with the above stated aims and purposes, and encourages interaction beyond the traditional schools of thought.
期刊最新文献
Bioprospecting, drug choices and conservation of biological diversity under free trade Assessing the impact of energy R&D on green growth in OECD countries: a CS-ARDL analysis Optimal environmental policy for NPS pollution under random welfare Assessing the elicitation of perceived status quo information as a tool to increase survey engagement and enhance accuracy of preference estimates in discrete choice experiments Quantile connectedness in renewable energy companies and related commodities during Covid-19 outbreak
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1