Literature DB >> 27576151

A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods.

O Sarobidy Rakotonarivo1, Marije Schaafsma2, Neal Hockley3.   

Abstract

While discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in the field of environmental valuation, they remain controversial because of their hypothetical nature and the contested reliability and validity of their results. We systematically reviewed evidence on the validity and reliability of environmental DCEs from the past thirteen years (Jan 2003-February 2016). 107 articles met our inclusion criteria. These studies provide limited and mixed evidence of the reliability and validity of DCE. Valuation results were susceptible to small changes in survey design in 45% of outcomes reporting reliability measures. DCE results were generally consistent with those of other stated preference techniques (convergent validity), but hypothetical bias was common. Evidence supporting theoretical validity (consistency with assumptions of rational choice theory) was limited. In content validity tests, 2-90% of respondents protested against a feature of the survey, and a considerable proportion found DCEs to be incomprehensible or inconsequential (17-40% and 10-62% respectively). DCE remains useful for non-market valuation, but its results should be used with caution. Given the sparse and inconclusive evidence base, we recommend that tests of reliability and validity are more routinely integrated into DCE studies and suggest how this might be achieved.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Discrete choice experiment; Non-market environmental goods; Reliability; Systematic review; Validity

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27576151     DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Manage        ISSN: 0301-4797            Impact factor:   6.789


  12 in total

1.  Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data.

Authors:  John Buckell; Stephane Hess
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Estimating the willingness-to-pay to avoid the consequences of foodborne illnesses: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Kathleen Manipis; Brendan Mulhern; Philip Haywood; Rosalie Viney; Stephen Goodall
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-09-08

Review 3.  Application of Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods in Tobacco Control: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Kabindra Regmi; Dinesh Kaphle; Sabina Timilsina; Nik Annie Afiqah Tuha
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2018-03

4.  Preference classes in society for coastal marine protected areas.

Authors:  Ana Ruiz-Frau; James M Gibbons; Hilmar Hinz; Gareth Edwards-Jones; Michel J Kaiser
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies.

Authors:  Caroline M Vass; Niall J Davison; Geert Vander Stichele; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Measuring commissioners' willingness-to-pay for community based childhood obesity prevention programmes using a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Edward J D Webb; Elizabeth Stamp; Michelle Collinson; Amanda J Farrin; June Stevens; Wendy Burton; Harry Rutter; Holly Schofield; Maria Bryant
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Application of discrete choice experiments to estimate value of life: a national study protocol in Iran.

Authors:  Negar Mirzaee; Amirhossein Takian; Farshad Farzadfar; Rajabali Daroudi; Ali Kazemi Karyani; Ali Akbari Sari
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2021-01-30

8.  Farmers' willingness to pay for digital and conventional credit: Insight from a discrete choice experiment in Madagascar.

Authors:  Yaw Sarfo; Oliver Musshoff; Ron Weber; Michael Danne
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  To what extent do potential conservation donors value community-aspects of conservation projects in low income countries?

Authors:  Amy R Lewis; Richard P Young; James M Gibbons; Julia P G Jones
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Who bears the cost of forest conservation?

Authors:  Mahesh Poudyal; Julia P G Jones; O Sarobidy Rakotonarivo; Neal Hockley; James M Gibbons; Rina Mandimbiniaina; Alexandra Rasoamanana; Nilsen S Andrianantenaina; Bruno S Ramamonjisoa
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.