Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Preference uncertainty in stated preference studies: Facts and artefacts

dc.contributor.authorAkter, Sonia
dc.contributor.authorBennett, Jeffrey
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-10T23:34:51Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.date.updated2016-02-24T08:53:49Z
dc.description.abstractThe ordinal scale and polychotomous choice methods are two widely used techniques for estimating preference uncertainty in stated preference studies. This article presents the results of two experiments that apply these estimation techniques. The first experiment was designed to compare and contrast the scores of the ordinal scale and polychotomous choice method. The second experiment was conducted to test a scale that combines verbal expressions with numerical and graphical interpretations: a composite scale. The results of the study can be summarized in three key findings. First, the polychotomous choice method generates a higher proportion of 'yes' responses than the conventional dichotomous choice elicitation format. Second, the composite scale generates a significantly higher proportion of certain responses. Finally, the ordinal scale performs poorly on the ground of construct validity.
dc.identifier.issn0003-6846
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/69601
dc.publisherRoutledge, Taylor & Francis Group
dc.sourceApplied Economics
dc.subjectKeywords: contingent valuation; experimental study; model test; model validation; performance assessment; preference behavior; uncertainty analysis climate change; contingent valuation; ordinal scale; polychotomous choice method; preference uncertainty
dc.titlePreference uncertainty in stated preference studies: Facts and artefacts
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.issue15
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage2115
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage2107
local.contributor.affiliationAkter, Sonia, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research
local.contributor.affiliationBennett, Jeffrey, College of Asia and the Pacific, ANU
local.contributor.authoruidBennett, Jeffrey, u9907243
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor140205 - Environment and Resource Economics
local.identifier.absseo960501 - Ecosystem Assessment and Management at Regional or Larger Scales
local.identifier.ariespublicationf5625xPUB2070
local.identifier.citationvolume45
local.identifier.doi10.1080/00036846.2012.654914
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-84859636325
local.identifier.thomsonID000303582600015
local.type.statusPublished Version

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Akter_Preference_uncertainty_in_2012.pdf
Size:
236.34 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format