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

Petrolia, Daniel R.; Interis, Matthew G.; Hwang, Joonghyun

doi:10.1007/s10640-016-0083-6

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a DCE survey, respondents are asked to consider a set of multi‐attribute choice alternatives that alter a set of environmental and other conditions (typically including household cost), and to indicate the alternative they would choose or prefer. Among the methodological choices faced by those applying DCEs is response format, or the format of the question used to elicit preference information from respondents (Johnston et al ; Petrolia et al ; Yangui et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…If one assumes strict neoclassical decision‐making with perfect and consistent information processing, then the format of DCEs should be largely irrelevant to the choice process and model outcomes, as long as the questions are consistent with the same underlying random utility model (Johnston and Swallow ; Swait and Adamowicz ; Meyerhoff et al ). One of the few systematic comparisons of BW to other common elicitation formats in the environmental valuation literature is that of Petrolia et al (), conducted in the context of ecosystem service valuation within the United States. Their analysis compares the results of one‐shot single dichotomous choice, repeated pick‐one DCE and BW case 3 applications and finds little difference in parameter and welfare estimates after allowing for differences in scale and the order of questions.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are advantages and disadvantages to all common DCE response formats (Petrolia et al ). For example, one‐shot, binary referendum questions (i.e.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, BW could be used with smaller sample sizes (Scarpa et al ), without concern that the resulting welfare estimates might be sensitive to this choice. Past work has been mixed regarding the sensitivity of welfare and preference estimates to stated‐preference response formats (see review in Petrolia et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Giergiczny et al ; Rose ), other analyses have found that BW formats can provide reasonable preference information similar to that generated by alternative formats (e.g. Yangui et al ; Petrolia et al ). The juxtaposition of these seemingly inconsistent findings combined with a ‘relatively young’ literature in this area (Petrolia et al , p. 367), suggests the need for additional work to evaluate the validity of BW elicitation within valuation contexts such as the ubiquitous three‐alternative DCE.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best‐worst and referendum data

MacDonald

Rose

Johnston

et al. 2019

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In nonmarket valuation, practitioners must choose a format for the valuation questions. A common approach in discrete choice experiments is the 'pick-one' format, often with two alternative policy proposals and a status quo from which the respondent selects. Other proposed formats, include best-worst elicitation, where respondents are asked to indicate their most and least favoured alternative from a set. Although best-worst formats can offer efficiency in data collection, they can also lead to responses that are difficult to reconcile with neoclassical welfare estimation. The current article explores methodological issues surrounding the use of pick-one versus best-worst data for nonmarket valuation, focusing on framing and status quo effects that may occur within three-alternative discrete choice experiments. We illustrate these issues using a case study of surplus groundwater use from Western Australian mining. Results identify concerns that may render best-worst data unsuitable for welfare estimation, including a prevalence of serial choices in which the status quo is universally chosen as the worst alternative, rendering part of the choice process deterministic. Asymmetry of preferences and serial choices can be obscured when models are estimated using 'naively' pooled best-worst data. Results suggest that caution is warranted when using best-worst data for valuation, even when pooled results appear satisfactory.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are advantages and disadvantages to all common DCE response formats (Petrolia et al ). For example, one‐shot, binary referendum questions (i.e.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best‐worst and referendum data

MacDonald

Rose

Johnston

et al. 2019

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study undertook a head-to-head comparison of best-worst, best-best and ranking discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to help decide which method to use if moving beyond traditional single-best DCEs. Respondents were randomized to one of three preference elicitation methods. Rank-ordered (exploded) mixed logit models and respondent-reported data were used to compare methods and first and second choices. First choices differed from second choices and preferences differed between elicitation methods, even beyond scale and scale dynamics. First choices of best-worst had good choice consistency, scale dynamics and statistical efficiency, but this method's second choices performed worst. Ranking performed best on respondent-reported difficulty and preference; best-best's second choices on statistical efficiency. All three preference elicitation methods improve efficiency of data collection relative to using first choices only. However, differences in preferences between first and second choices challenge moving beyond single-best DCE. If nevertheless doing so, best-best and ranking are preferred over best-worst DCE.

show abstract

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Willingness-To-Pay for Wetlands: A Case Study of Coastal Wetlands in Tampa Bay

Hwang

2024

Wetlands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Cited by 18 publications

References 44 publications

Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best‐worst and referendum data

Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best‐worst and referendum data

Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Willingness-To-Pay for Wetlands: A Case Study of Coastal Wetlands in Tampa Bay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About