A new coefficient of economic valuation based on utility scores

A new coefficient of economic valuation based on utility scores

Paolo Mariani, Mauro Mussini

 

Keywords: conjoint analysis, willingness-to-pay, economic valuation, valuation of public goods

 

Summary: This paper proposes a new coefficient for measuring economic valuation based on utility scores and attribute importance values derived from standard conjoint analysis. The coefficient allows to quantify the impact of a change in an attribute of a good or service in monetary terms. We utilize the suggested coefficient for the economic valuation of a worldwide cultural event to reveal the trade-offs among its attributes in terms of total revenue variation. In addition, our findings indicate how the user degree of satisfaction affects the determinants of demand in generating an economic surplus or shortfall.

 

References: 

Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., Louviere, J., Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation, “American Journal of Agricultural Economics”, 80, pp. 64-75, 1998.

Addelman, S., Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Fractional Factorial Plans, “Technometrics”, 4(1), pp. 47-58, 1962.

Allison, P. D., Christakis, N. A.,  Logit Models for Sets of  Ranked Items, “Sociological Methodology”, 24, pp. 199-228, 1962.

Beggs, S., Cardell, S., Hausman, J. A., Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars, “Journal of Econometrics”, 16, pp. 1-19, 1981.

Bille-Hansen, T., The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good, “Journal of Cultural Economics”, 21, pp. 1-28, 1997.

Boxall, P., Adamowicz, W., Swait, J., Williams, M., Louviere, J., A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Valuation, “Ecological Economics”, 18, pp. 243- 253, 1996.

Breidert, C., Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay. Theory, Measurement, Application. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden 2006.

Carmone, F. J., Green, P. E., Jain, A. K., Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monte Carlo Results, “Journal of Marketing Research”, 15, pp. 300-303, 1978.

Cattin, R. G., Wittink, R., Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey, “Journal of Marketing”, 46, pp. 44-53, 1982.

Chapman, R. G., Staelin, D. R., Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data Within the Stochastic Utility Model, “Journal of Marketing Research”, 19, pp. 288-301, 1982.

Diamond, P. A., Hausman, J. A., Is Some Number Better than No Number?, “The Journal of Economic Perspectives”, 8(4), pp. 45-64, 1994.

Foster, V., Mourato, S., Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach, “Journal of Agricultural Economics”, 51, pp. 1-21, 2000.

Foster, V., Mourato, S., Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments, “Journal of Environmental Economics and Management”, 44, pp. 309-328, 2002.

Green, P. E., Srinivasan, V., Conjoint Analysis and Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, “Journal of Consumer Research”, 5(2), pp. 103-123, 1978.

Green,  P.  E.,  Srinivasan,  V.,  Conjoint  Analysis  in  Marketing:  New  Developments  with Implications for Research and Practice, “Journal of Marketing”, 54(4), pp. 3-19, 1990. Hausman, J. A., Ruud, P. A., Specifying and Testing Econometric Models for Rank-Ordered Data, “Journal of Econometrics”, 34, pp. 83-104, 1987.

Hanley, N., Mourato, S., Wright, R. E., Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?, “Journal of Economic Survey”, 15(3), pp. 435- 462, 2001.

Irwin, J. R., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., McClelland, G., Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values, “Journal of Risk and Uncertainty”, 6, pp. 5-18, 1993.

Lancaster, K. J., A New Approach to Consumer Theory, “Journal of Political Economy”, 74, pp. 132-157, 1966.

Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., Swait, J. D., Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000.

Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., Carson, R. T., Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis, “Journal of Choice Modelling”, 3, pp. 57-72, 2010.

Mackenzie, J., A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models, “American Journal of Agricultural Economics”, 75, pp. 593-603, 1993.

Mariani, P., Mussini, M., Zavarrone, E., The Measure of Economic Re-Evaluation: a Coefficient Based on Conjoint Analysis [in:] Ingrassia S., Rocci R., Vichi M., (eds.) New Perspective in Statistical Modeling and Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 85- 92, 2011.

Mazzanti, M., Discrete Choice Model and Valuation Experiment, “Journal of Economic Studies”, 30(6), pp. 584-604, 2003.

Roe, B., Boyle, K. J., Teisl, M. F., Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation, “Journal of Environmental Economics and Management”, 31, pp. 145-159, 1996.

Sanz, J. A., Herrero, L. C., Bedate, A. M., Contingent Valuation and Semiparametric Methods: A Case Study of the  National Museum of Sculpture in Valladolid, Spain, “Journal of Cultural Economics”, 27, pp. 241-257, 2003.

Willis, K. G., Snowball, J. D., Investigating How the Attributes of Live Theatre Production Influence Consumption Choices Using Conjoint Analysis: The Example of the National Art Festival, South Africa, “Journal of Cultural Economics”, 33, pp. 167-183, 2003.

 

 

Download PDF

Read 1338 times Last modified on Saturday, 01 March 2014 15:56