From Edward Elgar:
Handbook of Choice Modelling (2014)
In Chapter 1 Hess and Daly mention the Carson and Czajkowski chapter titled "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation":
Carson and Czajkowski next look at the use of experimental data in the vibrant area of environmental economics where revealed preference data is often not an option, given the hypothetical nature of the valuations of interest.
To me, since Carson and Czajkowski argue that referendum CVM is a simple form of choice modelling, that sounds like an endorsement of the use of CVM to better understand preferences towards the environment. Indeed, Adamowicz, Glenk and Meyerhoff ("Choice Modelling research in environmental and resource economics") in the research needs section of the Hess and Daly book note:
Contingent valuation is one form of 'discrete-choice experiment' - using terminology outlined by Carson and Louviere (2011), as are 'choice experiments' in which many attributes, including price, are manipulated using an experimental design. Various challenging issues continue to arise in the use of discrete-choice experiment stated preference methods in environmental valuation.
The first five sections of the Adamowicz, Glenk and Meyerhoff chapter decribe research needs specific to stated preference data.
In the Critical Acclaim section of the website:
‘A truly astonishing collection of papers. This book is the new place to go for learning the latest and greatest in choice modelling.’
– Kenneth Train, University of California, Berkeley, US
But, also from Edward Elgar:
Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique (2017)
Edited by Daniel McFadden, E. Morris Cox Professor of Economics and Kenneth Train, Adjunct Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, US
In the Critical Acclaim section of the website:
‘While scepticism about the validity of contingent valuation (CV) approach is widespread in many parts of the choice modelling community, advocates of CV for the valuation of environmental goods point to a number of guidelines that, if followed (often blindly), should lead to reliable results. The evidence in this excellent book, compiled in an objective manner by Dan McFadden and Kenneth Train, casts doubts on this, and points to the far bigger issue of respondents not being able to adequately value such unfamiliar goods in a survey context. The book makes required reading for anyone interested in the topic and suggests that researchers and practitioners in environmental economics should think very carefully about their continued reliance on CV, or indeed other stated preference approaches, for the valuation of environmental goods.’
– Stephane Hess, University of Leeds, UK
I read this and went all like "huh?".
So, what is "choice modelling"? From Wikipedia:
There are a number of terms which are considered to be synonyms with the term choice modelling. Some are accurate (although typically discipline or continent specific) and some are used in industry applications, although considered inaccurate in academia (such as conjoint analysis).[2]
These include the following:
- Stated preference discrete choice modeling
- Discrete choice
- Choice experiment
- Stated preference studies
- Conjoint analysis
- Controlled experiments
Although disagreements in terminology persist, it is notable that the academic journal intended to provide a cross-disciplinary source of new and empirical research into the field is called the Journal of Choice Modelling.
Stephane Hess is the editor of the Journal of Choice Modelling and Kenneth Train is an associate editor. The editorial board is full of researchers who use stated preference data. The journal is full of articles that use stated preference data (here is the link to the most cited: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling/most-cited-articles).
McFadden and Train conclude their promotional blurb with this:
Bringing together leading voices in the field, this timely book tells a unified story about the interrelated features of contingent valuation and how those features affect its reliability. Through empirical analysis and review of past studies, the authors identify important deficiencies in the procedure, raising questions about the technique’s continued use.
Train and Hess are sending mixed messages with their book endorsements. Does Train still think that Hess' book is good? or should the stated preference chapters be purged? Does Hess, editor of the Journal of Choice Modelling, really believe that researchers should stop using stated preference methods?
What the heck is going on?
