Conjoint Analysis
Area 7 • Risk Assessment, Risk Management, Health
Review Article
Conjoint Analysis for Environmental Evaluation
A review of methods and applications *
Stina Alriksson** and Tomas Öberg
University of Kalmar, School of Pure and Applied Natural Sciences, 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden
** Corresponding author (stina.alriksson@hik.se)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/espr2008.02.479
Please cite this paper as: Alriksson S, Öberg T (2008): Con-
joint Analysis for Environmental Evaluation – A review of meth-
ods and applications. Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 244–257
Abstract
Background, Aim and Scope. Conjoint analysis and the related
choice-modelling methods have been used for many years in
marketing research to evaluate consumer behaviour and prefer-
ences for different kinds of product attributes. Recently, the
number of applications in environmental science and manage-
ment has started to grow. Conjoint analysis is found in many
different forms, and the environmental studies evaluated in this
review display the same range of methods as in other fields. The
key characteristic of all these methods is that trade-offs are evalu-
ated by jointly considering a number of important attributes.
Main Features. This paper is a review of the literature on envi-
ronmental applications of conjoint analysis and assesses in which
environmental area conjoint analysis has been most successful.
The method and the design of the studies are reviewed as well.
Results. A total of 84 studies were found, dealing with environ-
mental issues that were evaluated by conjoint analysis. The stud-
ies concern agriculture, ecosystem management, energy, envi-
ronmental evaluation, forestry, land management, pollution,
products, recreation, environmental risk analysis and waste
management.
Discussion. Choice experiments seem to have a comparatively
stronger position in environmental studies than elsewhere. Most
of the environmental applications are related to natural resource
management. This is somewhat surprising, but a number of re-
ports have appeared also on product evaluation, which could
be a key application area in the future.
Conclusions. Compared to marketing and transportation, the
number of environmental conjoint studies is rather small but
increasing, and the method has proven to work effectively in
eliciting preferences on environmental issues.
In environmental issues, experimenters often use choice experi-
ments, especially concerning ecosystem management and envi-
ronmental evaluations. When it comes to evaluating preferences
concerning agriculture, forestry, energy and products, a more
traditional approach of conjoint analysis is favoured.
Recommendations and Perspectives. Two new areas of applica-
tion are identified in this review – environmental communica-
tion and expert elicitation. Conjoint analysis can thus be devel-
oped into a useful instrument for environmental risk analysis
and communication, both of which are necessary for an effi-
cient approach to risk governance.
244
Subject Area 7
Keywords: Choice experiments; conjoint analysis; environmental
communication; environmental valuation; environmental expert
elicitation; environmental management; environmental risk
analysis; review
Abbreviations: ACA – Adaptive Conjoint Analysis; WTP – Will-
ingness To Pay; WTA – Willingness To Accept; ECPB – Envi-
ronmental Conscious Purchase Behaviour; OLS – Ordinary Least
Squares; ANOVA – Analysis Of VAriance; MONANOVA –
MONotone ANalysis Of VAriance; PREFMAP – PREFerence
MAPping; LINMAP – LINear programming technique for Mul-
tidimensional Analysis of Preference
Introduction
Conjoint analysis is a stated preference method which means
that the method measures how a respondent states that he
or she will react in a certain situation, for example which
recreation area, out of a number of presented areas, that he
or she would prefer to visit (Alriksson & Öberg 2008). As
opposed to stated preference methods there are revealed pref-
erence methods. In a revealed preference study, the actual
behaviour of the respondents is studied. Although this seems
more advantageous, the revealed preference method is hard
to apply with assessment of environmental problems, since
many situations cannot be studied directly.
If one, for example, wants to study how consumers look
upon the environmental drawbacks of a planned motorway,
there are no revealed preferences to study, since the motorway
has not yet been built. Also if a producer wishes to develop a
product that has one or several environmental friendly at-
tributes, such as being eco-labelled or produced from renew-
able materials, there is no actual sales statistics to embrace,
since the product does not yet exist. In these cases a stated
preference study has proven useful since it enables assess-
ment of how the respondents state that they will react.
The advantage of stated preference techniques is that it al-
lows the researcher to measure the relative values of attributes
that have been considered jointly by the respondent. Since
an everyday choice situation never concerns only one single
attribute of a product or service, the multiple factor choice
situations will be poorly measured if each attribute is evalu-
ated separately. Instead the conjoint analysis method allows
attributes to be measured jointly (Bigsby & Ozanne 2002).
* ESS–Submission Editor: Dr. Susanne Heise (s.heise@tu–harburg.de)
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 244 – 257 (2008)
© Springer-Verlag 2008
Subject Area 7
Each product or alternative that is to be assessed by the
respondent has a number of attributes, decided by the re-
searcher. The study-objects are thus hypothetical, created
by the researcher. This is a great advantage since the re-
searcher can choose the attributes that are believed to have
the largest impact on the respondents. Each attribute is given
a number of levels, for example high, medium and low.
The aim of a stated preference study is to estimate the de-
gree of preference the respondent has on each attribute as-
signed to the product or situation. For each attribute the
part-worth’s of the respondent is estimated, this means that
the researcher estimates a value that explains how impor-
tant the respondent find each attribute and these values are
called part-worth's or utilities.
Conjoint analysis is not new. On the contrary, it has been
used for almost half a century, and it has even been claimed
that the field dates back as far as the 1920s (Green &
Srinivasan 1978). Conjoint analysis methods started to evolve
rapidly in the late 1950s and early 1960s, (Green & Rao
1971, Luce & Tukey 1964, Tversky 1967).
Today, the method is widely used in marketing, health care,
quality management and transportation studies (Ben-Akiva
& Lerman 1985, Cattin & Wittink 1982, Daniels & Hensher
2000, Green & Srinivasan 1990, Leitham et al. 2000, Luce
1996, Reutterer & Kotzab 2000, Ryan et al. 2001a, Ryan et
al. 2001b, Wittink & Cattin 1989).
Although conjoint analysis has mostly been used in market-
ing and transportation, recently several reports have ap-
peared from successful applications to environmental issues.
Some of the first environmental studies to apply conjoint
analysis was made by Beggs et al. (1981), Lareau and Rae
(1989), Gan and Luzar (1993) and Bunch (1993). The rather
slow development in environmental applications is some-
what surprising, since conjoint analysis is especially suit-
able for evaluating non-use values. A beautiful view, clean
air, biodiversity and the preservation of natural resources
for future generations are examples of such environmen-
tally related values that may provide non-use values to its
contemplators. Use values, on the other hand, are such val-
ues that are useful due to usage – use of resources, use of
services etc. (Bateman et al. 2002, Farber & Griner 2000a,
Freeman 2003, Louviere et al. 2000, Rutherford et al. 1998).
Thus, the conjoint analysis method has a base in both
behavioural science and economic science since the method
has evolved through marketing strategies. (Sammer &
Wüstenhagen 2006). The cases studied in this review all
utilises conjoint analysis to study attitudes and preferences
for environmental issues. Therefore, the base for the cases
studied in this review is behavioural theory, mathematical
psychology theory and also environmental economical theory
for the evaluation of different environmental goods.
The aim of this review is to provide an introduction to con-
joint analysis and an overview of its application in the envi-
ronmental field. We believe that conjoint analysis and re-
lated methods have the potential for wider use in environ-
mental science. We also see an opportunity to use results
from these studies to enable a meaningful dialogue between
experts, decision makers and stakeholders.
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Conjoint Analysis
1 The Conjoint Analysis Method
In a purchase situation buyers evaluate attributes such as
price, performance, colour and brand of an available prod-
uct in order to choose the product that is the most attractive
to them. In a real situation, the buyer rarely finds the ulti-
mate product, but is still able to select the single best prod-
uct from all available ones. The buyer has to 'consider jointly'
all attributes of the different products.
Conjoint analysis mimics this situation and lets respondents
choose, rate or rank different predetermined product alter-
natives. The alternatives all have a different set of attributes
and levels of the attributes. By varying the levels of the at-
tributes presented to the respondents, the preference struc-
ture of the respondents will be revealed.
Conjoint analysis can handle complex choice situations
where more than one attribute has an important influence
on the choice (Rolfe et al. 2000). It is assumed that the util-
ity, the preference for the hypothetical product or service, is
a function of a set of explanatory variables such as the prod-
uct attributes (McFadden 1974, Walker & Ben-Akiva 2002).
The stated preference studies can be divided into several dif-
ferent methods. First, there is a difference between compo-
sitional and decompositional methods. In a compositional
method, the respondents first state their part-worths by them
selves by estimating how important each attribute is to them
personally. Thereafter the utility of each presented alterna-
tive product or situation is put together, composed, by add-
ing the stated utilities for each attribute.
The decompositional methods let the respondent evaluate
each product or situation, and through experimental design
of the study, the utilities are estimated, decomposed, from
the answers of the respondents. Conjoint analysis is a
decompositional method, which means that it decomposes
the utility factors (part-worth's) from the responses made
by the respondents (Green & Srinivasan 1990). What the
respondents are evaluating is the full description of the hy-
pothetical situation or product, and the researcher has to
derive the part-worth's across all the responses. Conversely,
compositional methods goes the other way, i.e. it aims to
estimate the part-worth for each attribute by letting respon-
dents state how important that attribute is. Thereafter the
part-worths are put together – i.e. composed.
Several authors have argued that decompositional techniques
are more efficient in predicting choice behaviour (Sattler &
Hensel-Börner 2003). Nevertheless, there has been a rapid
development of applications where both compositional and
decompositional approaches are combined. The self-expli-
cated approach is used together with traditional conjoint
methodology to form the Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA),
which has become a common tool for many commercially
conducted conjoint analyses (Wittink et al. 1994).
Several alternative variants of conjoint analysis have evolved
over time. They differ in both design and data analysis, but
they all share a common denominator in aiming to deter-
mine the respondent's preference structure (Gustafsson et
al. 2003a). The name 'conjoint analysis' was adopted by
Green and Srinivasan in 1978 "to cover models and tech-
245
Conjoint Analysis
niques that emphasize the transformation of subjective re-
sponses into estimated parameters" (Green & Srinivasan
1978). The authors further states that they "use the term
conjoint analysis broadly to refer to any decompositional
method that estimates the structure of a consumers prefer-
ences (e.g. part worth's, importance weights, ideal points)
given his/her overall evaluations of a set of alternatives that
are pre-specified in terms of levels of different attributes."
Here, the most common methods are briefly introduced. The
contingent evaluation method is a widely used stated prefer-
ence method to evaluate preferences for environmental
changes. The respondents are asked to state their willing-
ness to pay (WTP) or their willingness to accept compensa-
tion (WTA) for a specified non-market environmental change
(Bateman et al. 2002, Mackenzie 1993). The contingent
evaluation method has been evaluated and compared to other
stated preference methods in several papers, and will not be
discussed further here (Boxall et al. 1996, Colombo et al.
2006, Foster & Mourato 2003, Hanley et al. 1998a, Stevens
et al. 2000, Wardman & Bristow 2004, Venkatachalam
2004). A parallel method to the contingent evaluation
method is the contingent behaviour method, where respon-
dents are asked whether they would be willing to change
their behaviour as a result of price or quality changes (Bon-
nieux et al. 1998, Morton et al. 1995).
In this review, focus will be on what is generally called 'con-
joint analysis', including all the different variants given other
names (Fig. 1). We prefer to use this collective term to
emphasise the common framework, while others have ar-
gued for a more specific terminology to avoid misconcep-
tions (Louviere Jordan et al. 2003). Conjoint analysis, as
used here, can be divided into at least three different groups:
Preference studies
Revealed preference
Contingent behaviour
Decompositional
Choice modelling
Choice experiments
Contingent rating
Contingent ranking
Paired comparison
Fig. 1: Conjoint analysis methods
246
Subject Area 7
choice modelling, hierarchical conjoint analysis and hybrid
conjoint analysis
Choice modelling is a collective term used by some authors,
and includes variants such as choice experiments, contin-
gent ranking, contingent rating and paired comparison
(Hanley et al. 2001). The choice experiment model was first
described by Louviere and Woodworth (1983). In a choice
experiment, respondents are asked to choose their favourite
from two or three attributes/alternatives, one being a status
quo alternative (Álvarez-Farizo & Hanley 2002, Hanley et
al. 1998b). Choice experiments are based on random utility
theory which implies that the different attributes presented
to the respondent each contributes with additive utility fac-
tors together with a random component to capture the un-
observed effects. The respondents are assumed to maximise
their utility probabilistically, where some aspects affecting
the choice remain to be identified (Louviere Jordan et al.
2000). One difference between choice experiments and tradi-
tional conjoint analysis is that the traditional conjoint analy-
sis is capable of dealing with analysis on an individual level,
while the choice experiment depends on aggregate level
analysis (Louviere Jordan 1992).
As with choice experiments, a status quo alternative may be
presented with surveys using the contingent ranking method,
only here respondents are asked to rank the sets of stimuli
instead of choosing one (Garrod & Willis 1997, Garrod &
Willis 1998a). The ranking guarantees richer statistical in-
formation than the choice experiment. Hanley et al. (2001)
discuss the possibility that there may be differences in the
preference structure over the ranks, which means that the
choices made by the respondents may be inconsistent across
the ranks. One way of dealing with this issue may be to
Stated preference
Contingent valuation
Stated choice methods
method
Conjoint analysis Compositional
Hierarchial conjoint
Hybrid conjoint analysis
analysis
Adaptive conjoint
analysis
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Subject Area 7
interrupt the ranking as soon as the status quo alternative
has been chosen.
In a contingent rating experiment, respondents are asked to
rate all of the alternatives independently on a predetermined
scale. The different alternatives do not need to be compared,
and therefore the rates are not directly comparable (Hanley
et al. 2001).
The paired comparison method combines choice and rat-
ing. First, the respondent chooses the most preferred alter-
native of two, and then he or she is asked to rate that alter-
native on a predetermined scale (Gustafsson et al. 2003a).
The hierarchical conjoint analysis can be used when the
number of attributes in a project is too large for them all to
be included in an ordinary design. By identifying indicators
that influence decisions (stakeholder groups or certain areas
of interest among the respondents) the attributes can be split
into several subsets, where a group of respondents evaluates
only one subset of questions (Goossen & Langers 2000).
The hybrid conjoint analysis was first described by Green
(1984). It is a combination of the self-explicated approach
and a conjoint approach, which means that it is also a com-
bination of a compositional and a decompositional approach.
More information on how to design a hybrid conjoint analy-
sis can be found in section 2.1, Design and survey techniques.
The hybrid method has been further developed into the adap-
tive conjoint analysis, which is a computer-based tool for
choosing and editing attributes and levels. It uses both a
self-explicated approach and trade-offs in the same way as
the hybrid method. A refinement is that the set of questions
or tradeoffs shown to the respondents is customised con-
tinuously according to the responses given by the respon-
dent (Johnson & Desvousges 1997, Mehta et al. 1992).
Conjoint analysis is not alone in the environmental evalua-
tion field. There are also numerous other methods that can
be used when a specific situation or environmental issue is
to be evaluated. The reader can find information on these
other environmental evaluation methods in the papers by
Damigos (2006), Mulye (1998), and Scholl et al. (2005).
Next, the method of conducting a conjoint analysis study
will be explained briefly. However, more thorough descrip-
tions of the method can be found in the literature, see (Bennett
& Blamey 2001, Green et al. 2001, Green & Rao 1971,
Gustafsson et al. 2003b, Hensher et al. 1999, Louviere Jor-
dan 1988).
1.1 Design and survey techniques
There are many alternative ways of designing a conjoint
study and the best method varies, naturally, according to
the aim of the project. Here, a number of design consider-
ations are discussed, together with examples from environ-
mental applications.
1.1.1 Attributes and levels
Conjoint analysis is based on statistical methods for the de-
sign of experiments. One of the first steps in designing a
conjoint analysis study is to decide which attributes to use
and how many levels each attribute should have. Blamey et
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Conjoint Analysis
al. (2002) suggest that attributes that are demand-relevant,
policy-relevant and measurable should be used.
How many attributes and levels to use will vary with the
subject being investigated. There is an upper limit as to how
many alternatives a respondent will be able to evaluate before
a fatigue effect occurs. Depending on the number of attributes
and levels that have been included in the survey, it may be
necessary to limit the number of stimuli presented to the re-
spondents. If all the combinations of all attributes and levels
are included in the study, and given to the respondents to evalu-
ate, a full factorial design is chosen. In most cases, however, a
full design would mean far too many evaluation situations for
the respondents. Instead a reduced design, a fractional fac-
torial design, can be used (Poortinga et al. 2003).
A consequence of the assumed additive model is often that
only main effects are considered. Some researchers have
pointed to the importance of interactions (Green & Srini-
vasan 1990). Design modifications to also estimate interac-
tion effects have therefore been suggested (Blomkvist et al.
2003, Gustafsson et al. 2003a).
It is not possible to state conclusively a maximum number
of combinations of attributes and levels. If the respondents
are exposed to a numerous amount of different sets of stimuli
to evaluate, there is a risk that the respondent weary of with-
out completing the task in the preferred way. This is called a
fatigue effect. Bigsby and Ozanne (2002) used twelve com-
binations of five attributes and managed to get a sufficient
basis for their analysis, while as many as 120 paired com-
parisons (choice sets) were used by Brown et al. (2002) with-
out any reported drop in consistency.
Another important factor to take into consideration when
constructing a questionnaire or a set of stimuli, is what at-
tributes to use. Daniels and Hensher (2000) found that at-
tributes that are distant from respondents' personal inter-
ests, such as changes in air quality or a decrease in greenhouse
gas emissions, are not evaluated appropriately when com-
bined with attributes that are close to their personal inter-
est, such as travel time or a reduction in local traffic. One
advantage of conjoint analysis is that it is possible to mix
metric attributes with binary attributes in the stimuli. How-
ever, in the design phase of the conjoint analysis it is impor-
tant to consider carefully the attributes and the meaning they
may have for the respondent to avoid problems like the ones
described by Daniels and Hensher (2000).
1.1.2 Presentation and measurement scale
There are several ways to collect the data from respondents:
the full profile and the trade-off approach are two methods
that are frequently cited. According to Wittink et al. (1994),
however, adaptive conjoint analysis was the most common
data collection method between 1986 and 1991, followed
by the full profile and the trade-off matrix (Green et al. 2001).
In the full profile approach, all attributes are presented to
each respondent for evaluation. The approach gives a real-
istic choice situation that mimics a purchase situation and
thus aims to model actual choices, but it is limited by the
number of evaluations the respondent can manage (Herr-
mann et al. 2003).
247
Conjoint Analysis
In the trade-off approach, a matrix is presented where each
column and row contains one level of the attributes that are
compared. The respondents are asked to evaluate one row
at a time, reducing the evaluation to two stimuli at a time
(Herrmann et al. 2003). This is similar to the paired com-
parison where the respondent is shown two sets of stimuli
where the levels of the attributes differ. The respondent is
asked to indicate which one is most preferred (Brown et al.
2002). In some research projects a reference alternative is
included. The reference alternative can be an estimate of
WTP or a status quo alternative (Horne & Petajisto 2003).
Adaptive conjoint analysis is a hybrid technique, where the
respondent evaluates pairs of partial profiles after a self-
explication task (Green et al. 2001). The first part (self-ex-
plicated) of a hybrid technique lets the respondent evaluate
the levels of each attribute and then the relative importance
of the used attributes (Green & Srinivasan 1990). After this
first evaluation, the respondent is given a limited number of
stimuli to evaluate the full or partial profile in accordance
with conjoint methodology. The load on the each respon-
dent will decrease by this selection of profile subsets from
the full set of attributes (Ben-Akiva et al. 2002, Green 1984).
The next step in the design process is to decide how the
stimuli are going to be presented to the respondent. Wittink
et al. (1994) concluded in their European study that verbal
description was the overall most important way of present-
ing the stimuli, but it is also possible for the analyst to cre-
ate visual stimuli (pictures). Bigsby and Ozanne (2002), for
example, chose to present their product by providing a draw-
ing along with product labels containing the different at-
tributes and levels.
It is crucial to ensure that respondents understand the ques-
tions and all attributes and levels. To avoid misinterpreta-
tion, a glossary or list of definitions is recommended (McCull-
ough 2002). In some surveys a description of the background
to the problem has been attached and short video presenta-
tions of the issue have also proved useful (Opaluch et al.
1993). One advantage of video is that all respondents re-
ceive exactly the same information prior to completing the
questionnaire. However, this is a matter of balance, as the
analyst does not want the respondent to become over in-
formed in such a way that he or she is no longer representa-
tive of the population as a whole.
To be able to evaluate the preference structure of the re-
spondents individually, as well as members of different in-
terest groups (stakeholder groups), the survey must include
supplementary questions. In many surveys on environmen-
tal issues, the questionnaire has been divided in two parts:
first questions concerning socioeconomic information and
attitudes towards the environment, and then questions con-
cerning the actual conjoint topic. Some authors suggest us-
ing three groups of questions besides the socioeconomic
section: an exercise or warm-up questions for the respon-
dent to become familiar with the survey, the actual con-
joint questions, and finally hold-out questions that will not
be included in the modelling but are used as a validation
set (McCullough 2002).
248
Subject Area 7
Anderson and Hansen (2004), for example, divided their
survey in two sections, dependent measures and explana-
tory measures. The dependent measures consisted of eight
versions of the wooden CD rack they wished to study. The
second part of their questionnaire aimed to examine the re-
spondents' Environmental Conscious Purchase Behaviour
(ECPB) through questions about demographics, willingness
to pay, knowledge about forest certification, importance of
environmental packaging, environmental concern etc.
Alvarez–Farizo and Hanley (2002) used a questionnaire di-
vided into three parts: first a part with questions concerning
the respondents' attitudes to the environment; secondly, a
section with the contingent rating and choice experiment
questions, and finally a third part with questions about the
respondents themselves (social and economic information).
Ewing and Sarigöllü (2000) had a similar approach, where
the socioeconomic and demographic information was gath-
ered by a telephone survey prior to the postal survey. The
questionnaire then consisted of two parts, first a choice situ-
ation (paired profiles comparison) and then questions con-
cerning attitudes towards the environment and technology.
Several authors point to the use of pre-tests, using a small
group of respondents to evaluate the questionnaire as a good
way of ensuring that it is sufficiently clear (Bergmann et al.
2006, Carlsson et al. 2003, Hope 2006, Stevens et al. 2000).
When presenting the stimuli, it is important to encourage
the respondent to act as if she or he was personally involved
in the described situation, i.e. was personally buying the
product or choosing the best recreational site. One way to
do this is to ask the respondents to approach the stimuli
(questionnaire or picture) as if they were intending to buy
the product being presented (Ewing & Sarigöllü 2000).
1.2 Data collection
With recent developments an increasing number of surveys
are being performed with the aid of computers. Respondents
complete the forms on the screen by themselves, in their
own time. Of course, it is still possible to have a researcher/
analyst in the room to guide the respondents if they encoun-
ter difficulties. There are a number of software developers
that manufacture survey software for conjoint analyses, for
example Sawtooth Software (www.sawtoothsoftware.com),
QuestionPro Survey Software (www.questionpro.com) and
SurveyZ (www.surveyz.com).
Personal interviews are also frequently used. An interview
can take place either person to person or be conducted by
telephone. A personal interview has the advantage that the
interviewer can explain the questions to the respondent and
thereby avoid errors arising from questionnaires completed
incorrectly. The interview situation also encourages the re-
spondent to carry out the entire task and not quit due to
fatigue. This may be especially important for environmental
applications since the issues in these tasks may be some-
what hard to grasp for respondents.
The response format in a conjoint analysis of an environ-
mental application does not require any specific consider-
ation over and above those made in the design of a standard
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Subject Area 7
conjoint analysis. Different types of collection procedures
can be used:
• Mail (Carlsson et al. 2003)
• Mail with reminders (Horne & Petajisto 2003)
• Telephone and mail (Ewing & Sarigöllü 2000)
One important issue to consider when designing the data
collection procedure is bias due to non-response. A 'nor-
mal' response rate in mail questionnaires is usually less than
50%, and this can be even lower if the subject covered in
the questionnaire is politically sensitive (Baarsma 2003). If
the non-response rate of the conjoint analysis exceeds 70%,
it may indicate that the design of the analysis has not been
sufficiently thorough, and a dropout study can be completed
to estimate the main reasons for the low response rate
(Winslott Hiselius 2005). If the results indicate a non-re-
sponse bias, then this bias can be evaluated by comparing
responses from the first collection of answers with responses
gathered in a second trial after sending out reminders to the
non-responding participants (Bigsby & Ozanne 2002).
One way of increasing the response rate was tried by Ewing
and Sarigöllü (2000). First, a random telephone survey was
conducted with 1,500 respondents. In this initial survey, in-
formation about the respondents was collected. Later, a mail
survey was conducted with those respondents that had agreed
to participate. Since the researchers already had background
information on the participators, the questions in the postal
survey were individually tailored to each respondent. In this
way the response rate was increased, both because the re-
spondents had agreed to participate during the initial tele-
phone survey and because the respondents only received
questions that were relevant to their specific situation. How-
ever, here too there is a risk of a self-selecting bias similar to
the previously described dropouts.
Another approach was tried by Bunch et al. (1993), in the
first phase of the survey, a recruitment letter was sent to a
random sample of households. If the receiver was interested
in participating, they returned a postcard questionnaire
where some initial background information on the respon-
dents was collected.
The choice of measurement scale is used, as shown previ-
ously, to define and differentiate between different variants
of conjoint analysis. The measurement scale is also crucial
for the data collection, where the analyst can choose to let
the respondents evaluate by rating, ranking, paired com-
parison or choice.
Rating of the alternatives on a predetermined measurement
scale is used to allow the researcher to evaluate the relation-
ship between the different preferences. The scale used may
differ from one analysis to another, from 1–5 all the way to
0–100. Poortinga et al. (2003) used a five–point scale, where
respondents were asked to rate each alternative from 1 to 5
(1: unacceptable – 5: very acceptable). The most common
scale seems to be 1–10 (Bigsby & Ozanne 2002). Johnson
and Desvousges (1997) reported that they found it advanta-
geous in the subsequent statistical analysis to have ratings
on the preferences, but that they also noticed that the re-
spondents used the scale differently within the same group.
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Conjoint Analysis
The scale and how it is interpreted can thus vary signifi-
cantly from one study to another, the important thing being
that it is suitable for the specific survey for which it is used.
An alternative to rating is to let respondents rank the pre-
sented alternatives from the best to the worst (Garrod & Willis
1997, Garrod & Willis 1998a, van der Meulen et al. 1996).
Bullock et al. (1998) gave their respondents choice sets to evalu-
ate, where respondents were asked to compare two hypotheti-
cal recreational hunting trips with the last trip the respondent
had taken (status quo alternative). Then the respondent was
asked to rank the two hypothetical trips giving a ranking of
the hypothetical trips as well as the status quo. Baarsma
(2003) combined ranking and rating to evaluate whether
there was any difference in the responses, but no significant
differences could be found in this specific project.
In a paired comparison, respondents are asked to choose
their preferred alternative from a set of two and also to rate
their preference. To be able to compare the choices, WTP is
often used as a measuring scale (Gustafsson et al. 2003a,
Lockwood 1999). In a choice experiment, the respondent is
instead asked to pick one of presented alternatives. It can be
argued that a choice-based measurement is better since it is
more similar to the purchase situation (McCullough 2002).
However, an evaluation of environmental values may not
necessarily involve a purchase of goods or services, but rather
be focused on evaluating the preference structure. The mea-
surement scale will therefore also depend on the overall aim
of the survey.
Moore concludes in his study on comparing rating-based
and choice-based conjoint analysis models that "it appears
to be premature to bury rating-based conjoint in favour of
choice-based conjoint analysis. At this point there does not
seem to be compelling empirical evidence to choose choice-
based over rating-based conjoint models (or vice versa)"
(Moore 2004).
1.3 Analysis
On an individual basis, results can be analysed as additive
functions of the attributes. The preference levels for each
attribute can then be determined by estimating the part-worth
for each level of the attribute. From these figures it is pos-
sible to estimate the relative importance of each attribute
for each respondent and/or group of respondents.
The selection of method for analysis will depend on the data
structure and assumed statistical model. Green and Srini-
vasan (1978) classified the estimation methods into three
main categories in relation to the measurement scaling: in-
terval, ordinal or choice-based.
Ordinary least squares (OLS) methods, multiple linear re-
gression and analysis of variance (ANOVA), can be used
when the dependent variable is metric (interval) scaled, such
as in a rating-based study (Hauser & Rao 2003).
Non–metric methods may be used when the dependent vari-
able is measured on an ordinal scale, such as in a ranking–
based study. Examples of methods in this class are MONA
NOVA, PREFMAP and LINMAP (Green & Srinivasan
1978). However, OLS may give satisfactory results also with
ranking–based studies (Anderson & Hansen 2004).
249
Conjoint Analysis
Probabilistic models, such as LOGIT and PROBIT, are of-
ten used when the dependent variable is categorical, such as
in a choice-based study. Several discrete choice models have
been developed from different statistical assumptions (Haaijer
& Wedel 2003). Some investigators employ the conditional
logit model (Álvarez-Farizo & Hanley 2002, Boxall et al. 1996,
Saelensminde 1999). A further development is the multino-
mial logit model (Ben-Akiva & Lerman 1985), which has also
been used in environmental studies (Berger & Kanetkar 1995,
Bullock et al. 1998, Wattage et al. 2005) . The maximum like-
lihood approach is used to estimate these models (Adamo-
wicz et al. 1997, Louviere et al. 2000).
In some surveys, conjoint analysis has been combined with
cluster analysis in order to group the respondents on the
basis of their answers (Bigsby & Ozanne 2002). Others have
used natural groups within the group of respondents to study
preferences among the groups (Anderson & Hansen 2004,
Horne et al. 2005, Poortinga et al. 2003). Probert et al. (2005)
separated different stakeholder groups to reveal their pref-
erences. It is also possible to include socioeconomic ques-
tions that can be used to divide the respondents into differ-
ent groups (Rolfe et al. 2000).
1.4 Validation
If monetary values are measured in the conjoint analysis, a
comparison with some sort of external monetary value of
the same object or change in the environment is a logic vali-
dation. However, it is not always easy to find an external
monetary value ready to be used (Blamey & Bennett 2001).
Without monetary values extracted from the results, the most
effective way to validate a stated preference method is
through a revealed preference study (Adamowicz et al. 1997,
Adamowicz et al. 1994, Earnhart 2001). It is possible to
validate whether the preferences stated in the conjoint analy-
sis are in agreement with the actual behaviour, i.e. if the
respondent is likely to behave according to his or her state-
ments (Freeman 2003).
More often, however, there are neither monetary values nor
a revealed preference study to use for validation. If, for ex-
ample, the conjoint analysis is used to evaluate the expected
public reaction to a policy decision, or how the market will
react to a new eco-efficient product, there is no way of com-
pleting a revealed preference study, since the decision has
not yet been made and the hypothetical product does not
exist on the market.
One example of validation in the absence of monetary val-
ues is presented by Winslott Hiselius (2005). The internal
consistency and validity may be tested from an assumption
about which alternative is best. If a respondent chooses a
certain alternative in a specific choice set, and if an even
better alternative is presented in one of the following choice
sets, then this better alternative should be chosen. A similar
approach was used by de Dios Ortúzar and Rodrígues
(2002). Yet another example is provided by Powe et al.
(2005), who combined a choice experiment with a post–
questionnaire qualitative analysis. Darmon and Rouziès
(1999) performed a simulation study on the internal valid-
250
Subject Area 7
ity, highlighting the importance of the measurement scales
and interactions with the type of conjoint design.
1.5 Weaknesses of conjoint analysis
Conjoint analysis suffers from various weaknesses and dif-
ficulties. The method has been criticised because the results
tend not to be completely repeatable – different elicitation
formats have been shown to give different estimations of
value or utility – and this has led to an extensive discussion
in the literature (Freeman 2003, Spash 2007, Urama 2006).
The fact that conjoint analysis relies on hypothetical situa-
tions or products constructed by the researcher is a poten-
tial pitfall since the method thus becomes expert-driven
where the expert decides what attributes to include in the
study. There is no guarantee that the attributes and levels
mirror the true preferences of the respondents, it may even
be argued that there is a risk that the researcher may fail to
capture the true preferences at all. It has also been argued
that methods similar to conjoint analysis assesses attitudi-
nal intentions instead of behaviour and that the results may
be influenced from cognitive and contextual biases (Gre-
gory et al 2006).
There are also internal problems with the method. First of
all, the design phase is extremely important: the researcher
needs to consider carefully how the survey will be conducted,
and pre-tests seem to be invaluable. Poor design may in-
clude too many questions, questions the respondent does
not understand, an irregular number of levels of attribute,
and too wide a range of the attributes (McCullough 2002).
The assumption of attribute additivity may also constitute a
potential pitfall.
Selection of participants (respondents) has a large influence
on the result and is therefore a major challenge. It is most
important that the selection is randomised and representa-
tive. There may be a tendency for certain groups to become
overrepresented in the material. Poortinga et al. (2003) re-
ported that respondents with a high income, high level of
education and aged 40–64 were overrepresented. Similar
conclusions were drawn by Baarsma (2003). There is al-
ways a risk of self-selection bias when respondents with a
strong opinion on the subject volunteer to participate. Too
small a sample size has also been reported as a potential
problem area (McCullough 2002).
There is a balance in informing the respondents about the
survey and their task: too little information makes it diffi-
cult for respondents to understand their task in the survey,
while giving too much information risks making them non–
representative of the general community (Rolfe et al. 2000).
The attributes needs to be carefully chosen, since there is a
risk of unfamiliar attributes affecting the responses (Johnson
& Desvousges 1997). If one attribute has significantly more
levels than the other attributes, it may also become more
important than the others (Anderson & Hansen 2004).
Finally, incorrect interpretation of results is an obvious weak-
ness of this method, as it is in all methods (McCullough
2002). Further reading concerning difficulties and weak-
nesses of the method can be found in Auty (1995) and Green
et al. (2001).
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Subject Area 7 Conjoint Analysis

2 Environmental Applications: Results and discussion to estimate how and why the public acts in certain ways
2.1 Area of study (Berger & Kanetkar 1995).
Conjoint analysis is a relatively new approach for evaluat-
ing environmental values, and it was not until the mid-1990s 2.2 Choice of method
that the method came into use. Since then conjoint analysis The environmental applications of conjoint analysis have
has been applied to a number of environmental issues such not been limited to one or two of the methods described
as energy, recreation, environmental evaluation, ecosystem above. On the contrary, all of the methods are repre-
management, consumer preferences for environmentally cer- sented even though some are more frequently employed
tified products, public preferences regarding industrial than others.
projects, and environmental policy development. In Table 1,
The methods presented in Fig. 3 are those that the authors
we have collected 84 environmentally related conjoint analy-
stated they used in their studies. In some cases, the name
ses that have been reported in the literature. Several theses,
conjoint analysis could probably be changed to choice ex-
research reports, official reports and technical papers by
periment, as choices are the prevailing method of deriving
software developers have also presented conjoint analyses
the utility from the respondents in the presented surveys.
evaluating environmental issues, but these have not been
The same is also likely to be the case for some of the choice
included in this review.
modelling studies.
Ecosystem management, environmental evaluation, product
Surprisingly, adaptive conjoint analysis is only represented
evaluation and recreation are the areas where most studies
by two studies in this material. This seems difficult to rec-
have been carried out (Fig. 2). Many of the studies reported
oncile with the results presented by Wittink et al. (1994),
in transport journals covering environmental issues and
where adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) was reported to be
evaluated with conjoint analysis naturally dealt with pollu-
the most frequently used method. This may reflect a differ-
tion and noise problems arising from transport (de Dios
ence in research approaches between marketing and envi-
Ortúzar & Rodrígues 2002, Saelensminde 1999, Wardman
ronmental science.
& Bristow 2004)
Most likely the choice experiment has a strong position
These studies may present very useful for policy makers and
among environmental researchers for several reasons. First,
planners in their aim of reducing pollution and noise in resi-
it seems to work well with environmental issues and in deal-
dential areas. Waste management studies as well as recre-
ing with non-use values such as biodiversity and nature re-
ation, risk analysis and transportation-related studies are
serves as the method is capable of producing results that are
often part of city planning and sustainable development. Here
compatible with economic theory. Tradition is another fac-
the method has also proved useful in gauging public opin-
tor that influences the choice of method. In marketing and
ion on for example landfills and industry location issues
transportation, where conjoint analysis has been used for
(Garrod & Willis 1998b, Opaluch et al. 1993). Agriculture
several decades, new projects naturally look to previous stud-
may also be a subject of interest to city planners, but we
ies and may therefore more easily choose a traditional con-
have found only two such conjoint studies that included
joint analysis or an ACA. Among environmental studies,
environmental concerns (Foster & Mourato 2000, van der
Meulen et al. 1996). however, there is less of a tradition to fall back on, and there-
fore it seems likely that the researchers will choose the
Product evaluation and marketing have used conjoint analy- method more freely.
sis over a long period, and there is no doubt that green prod-
uct development will be able to make much use of conjoint
2.3 Estimation of monetary values
analyses in the future (Chen 2001, Itsubo et al. 2004, Moore
et al. 1999, Straughan & Roberts 1999). Consumer behav- Environmental values are often non-use values, but tradi-
iour and other environmentally correlated behaviour is an tionally environmental economists have tried to measure the
area where conjoint analysis may work as an excellent tool value of an environmental good or change. This tradition of

Fig. 2: Number of conjoint analyses in various environmental areas Fig. 3: Methods used in environmental applications of conjoint analysis

Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008 251

Conjoint Analysis Subject Area 7

Table 1: Environmental applications of conjoint analysis

Area Application
Recreation Deer hunting and landscape change (Bullock et al. 1998)
Valuing wetland attributes (Carlsson et al. 2003)
Recreational hunting (Adamowicz et al. 1997, Boxall et al. 1996)
Management of Atlantic salmon fishery (Roe et al. 1996)
Recreational site choice (Adamowicz et al. 1994, Horne et al. 2005)
Indicators for recreation (Goossen & Langers 2000)
Change in river quality on the tourism value of Kruger National Park (Turpie & Joubert 2001)
Waterfowl hunting (Gan & Luzar 1993)
Estimation of loss of amenity value for inland waterways (Garrod & Willis 1998b)
Impact of user fees at public recreation sites (Schroeder & Louviere 1999)
Value of a nature reserve (Baarsma 2003)
Ecotourism development (Hearne & Salinas 2002, Hong et al. 2003)
Recreational sea angling (Lawrence 2005)
Ecosystem Management of mangrove wetlands in Malaysia (Othman et al. 2004)
management Moose management (Horne & Petajisto 2003)
Tropical rainforest preservation (Rolfe et al. 2000)
Ecosystem management (Stevens et al. 2000)
Value of ecosystem change (Garrod & Willis 1997)
Valuation of nature conservation (Li et al. 2004)
Woodland caribou habitat enhancement programme (Adamowicz Wiktor et al. 1998)
Value of biodiversity conservation policies (Garber-Yonts et al. 2004)
Remnant vegetation and wetland protection (Bennett et al. 2001)
Environmental aspects for residential locations (Earnhart 2001)
Environmental management strategies for water quality improvement (Robinson 2002)
Benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland (Hanley et al. 1998a)
Products Water consumption and water disposal services (Hensher et al. 2005)
The impact of environmental certification on preferences for wooden furniture and wood products (Anderson & Hansen 2004, Bigsby &
Ozanne 2002)
Green product choice (Blamey et al. 2001)
Clean-fuel vehicles (Beggs et al. 1981, Brownstone et al. 2000, Bunch et al. 1993, Dagsvik et al. 2002, Ewing & Sarigöllü 2000)
Life cycle impact assessment (Itsubo et al. 2004)
Workplace experience leading to increased environmental awareness (Berger & Kanetkar 1995)
Consumer preferences for eco-labelling (Sammer & Wüstenhagen 2006)
Environmental Water supply options (Gordon et al. 2001)
valuation Valuing watershed quality improvements (Farber & Griner 2000a,b)
Valuing improvements in river ecology (Hanley et al. 2005, Hanley et al. 2006)
Valuing water quality and access of the rural poor (Hope 2006)
Valuing wetland attributes and wetland improvement (Morrison et al. 2002)
Value of improving air quality, water quality and wildlife habitat (Shrestha & Alavalapati 2004)
Value of environmental losses (Brown et al. 2002)
Social benefits of soil conservation (Colombo et al. 2006)
Marine water quality improvements and health risk reductions (Machado & Mourato 2002)
Pollution Valuing reduction in pollution in a residential location (Chattopadhyay et al. 2005, de Dios Ortúzar & Rodrígues 2002)
Expert judgement on climate change (Alberini et al. 2005)
Valuing human health, biodiversity and the use of pesticides (Foster & Mourato 2000)
Environmental losses due to extension of motorway (Daniels & Hensher 2000)
Traffic-related noise and air quality valuation (Wardman & Bristow 2004)
WTP for diesel odour reductions (Lareau & Rae 1989)
Urban traffic air pollution and noise (Saelensminde 1999)
Attracting private investment to contaminated properties (Wernstedt et al. 2006)
Brownfield remediation and redevelopment (Alberini et al. 2005)
Energy Environmental impact of wind farms (Álvarez-Farizo & Hanley 2002)
Environmental, health and employment effects of energy programmes (Johnson & Desvousges 1997)
Preferences for energy-saving measures (Poortinga et al. 2003)
WTP for green electricity (Roe et al. 2001)
Energy pricing (Steg et al. 2006)
Valuing attributes of renewable energy investments (Bergmann et al. 2006)
Land Evaluating landscapes in a mountainous region (Powe et al. 2005)
management Landscape evaluation (Sayadi et al. 2005)
Environmental valuation of forest landscape (Hanley et al. 1998b)
Costal land management (Jiang et al. 2005)
Public preference for land management (Blamey et al. 1999, Blamey et al. 2002)
Agriculture/ Farmers' perceptions of unsprayed crop edges (van der Meulen et al. 1996)
Forestry Visitors' preferences for a nature and recreational park (Zinkhan et al. 1997)
Forest health (Heaefele & Loomis 2001)
Management of fisheries (Wattage et al. 2005)
Forest owners and conservation of forest biodiversity (Horne 2006)
Waste Preferences within the composting industry (Probert et al. 2005)
management Estimating lost amenity due to a landfill (Garrod & Willis 1998b)
Evaluation of social trade-offs associated with siting noxious facilities (Opaluch et al. 1993),
Solid waste management programmes in Macao (Jin et al. 2006a)
Social cost of landfill siting (Sasao 2004)
Risk analysis Preferences for rail transport of hazardous materials (Winslott Hiselius 2005)

252 Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008

Subject Area 7 Conjoint Analysis

16 There seems to be a division among the users of conjoint

14
Monetary analysis, where non–monetary evaluations tend to use con-
Non-monetary
joint analysis, whereas studies demanding monetary evalu-
12 ations use choice experiments based on random utility theory.
Number of studies

10 In environmental science, researchers often use choice ex-

periments to study issues related to ecosystem management
8
and in environmental evaluations. However, when it comes
6 to evaluating preferences concerning agriculture, forestry,
energy and products a more traditional approach of con-
4
joint analysis is favoured. As stated earlier, the design of the
2 study is essential for its success – the researcher needs to
carefully consider the attributes and levels and the way the
0
alternatives are presented to the respondent – and these con-
Environmental
Recreation

Pollution
management

Products

Agriculture,
management

management
Energy

management
Ecosystem

forestry
valuation

siderations obviously affects the choice of method. Many

Waste
Land

Risk
authors argue that choice-based measurements are more simi-
lar to a purchase situation and this may also compare well
Fig. 4: Number of environmental conjoint analysis studies using monetary to an environmental situation where only one choice is pos-
measures sible, for example the siting of an industrial facility. How-
ever, if the primary purpose is to gain a more in-depth un-
monetary estimations can be exemplified by the contingent derstanding of the preference structure, within and among
evaluation method, where monetary estimations such as different groups of stakeholders, then a ranking- or rating-
WTP are among the main aims of a study. The studies re- based approach may give more comprehensive results.
viewed here, however, do not all focus on the monetary val- The ongoing evolution of conjoint analysis and related meth-
ues. In Fig. 4, the environmental conjoint analyses are seg- ods has led to a situation where methods within the method
mented into those having monetary values as a measure and are evolving, each with a new name and a new vocabulary.
those that do not. Of the 84 environmental conjoint analy- This has sometimes created misunderstandings and confusion
ses collected here, 64 (55%) of the studies had some sort of to the concepts of 'conjoint analysis' and 'choice experiment'.
monetary measurement. We hope that this review will assist in clarifying the basic simi-
The use of monetary values can work in several ways. First, larities and relationships between some of these variants.
it is a way of demonstrating the change in welfare in the We have also noted that most of the environmental appli-
different alternatives that are being presented to the respon- cations are related to natural resource management. This is
dents (Bullock et al. 1998). WTP is naturally easier to esti- somewhat surprising, since product evaluation would seem
mate when a product is being evaluated than when evaluat- an obvious choice based on the experience in marketing
ing a change in ecosystem quality. Different prices can easily science. Some studies that address this issue have appeared,
be added to products as attributes, while the evaluation of but we expect this to be the major application area the fu-
'annual cost per household' may be more difficult for the ture. Environmental values are becoming increasingly im-
respondent. As Othman et al. (2004) wrote, "In particular, portant for consumer behavior and are thus important to
the selection of payment vehicles and even the notion of evaluate for companies that strive to improve their com-
associating monetary values with goods that may be regarded petitive edge.
as free or God-given, may present specific challenges". In
some cases the monetary attribute is more or less inevitable,
4 Recommendations and Perspectives
as for example in the study by Schoeder and Louviere (1999),
where the impact of implementing fees at a recreational site We would like to propose two new areas of application:
was the aim of the investigation. environmental communication and expert elicitation.
Communication is a key issue in dealing with and solving
3 Conclusions environmental problems. Communication and dialogue be-
Conjoint analysis with related methods is a fairly new ap- tween environmental experts, decision makers and different
proach in the field of environmental evaluation. Compared groups of stakeholders will create a better understanding of
to marketing and transportation the number of environmen- each other’s position with regard to the issue at hand. It is
tal conjoint studies is rather few. Though, in spite of its nov- our experience that different groups and individuals often
elty, the method has been used in some hundred environ- have significant difficulty in understanding one another's
mental studies and worked effectively in eliciting preferences point of view. Conjoint analysis could then be a useful tool,
on environmental issues. We anticipate that the use of this by estimating the preferences with the different stakeholder
method will increase even more during the coming years. groups and presenting the participants with the result from
Most studies reviewed here has dealt with recreation, eco- the survey. This of course assumes that results from a con-
system management, products, environmental evaluation and joint study can be efficiently displayed and communicated.
pollution, but there are also a number of studies that focus Expert elicitation is becoming more important in environ-
on energy, land management, agriculture, forestry, waste mental risk analysis, since more focus is given to scenarios
management and risk analysis. with a high level of uncertainty. Often these situations en-

Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008 253

Conjoint Analysis
compass complex processes where many factors have to be
taken into account. This is of course a situation where con-
joint analysis could facilitate evaluation. Several studies has
been made covering strategic decision–making or crisis man-
agement that can be compared to strategic environmental
decision making (Brönn & Olson 1999, Oppewal et al. 2000,
Stärk et al. 2002). Also a recent report on an environmental
application has been found (Alberini et al. 2005). We antici-
pate that this application will become more frequent in the
future, especially since it could also provide a tool for effi-
cient risk communication.
In summary, conjoint analysis has already proved its value
in environmental science and management. Now it can also
be developed into a useful instrument for environmental risk
analysis and communication, both of which are needed for
the development of an efficient approach to risk governance.
The report on the use of conjoint analysis as a risk manage-
ment tool by Winslott Hiselius (2005) provides an encour-
aging start to this development.
5 Addendum
After this review was completed an additional number of
studies have been published (Alberini et al. 2007, Álvarez-
Farizo et al. 2007, Belcher et al. 2007, Birol et al. 2006a,b,
Brey et al. 2007, Caplan et al. 2007, Colombo et al. 2007,
Concu 2007, Hanley et al. 2007, Huu Tuan & Navrud 2007,
Jin et al. 2006b, Kallas et al. 2007, Kelly et al. 2007, Levine
& Frank 2007, Lindhjem 2007, Lusk et al. 2007, Madureira
et al. 2007, Milon & Scrogin 2006, Mogas et al. 2006,
Nakatani et al. 2007, Ready et al. 2006, Saelensminde 2006,
Veisten 2007, Xu et al. 2007, Zhai et al. 2007).
These new studies do not change the results and main con-
clusions of this review, but give further examples of the ver-
satility of conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation.
Acknowledgements. This work was funded by the Foundation for
Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA) and the Swedish Steel
Producers' Association (Jernkontoret) through the research programme
'Towards a Closed Steel Ecocycle'. We would like to thank two anony-
mous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions that improved
the manuscript.
References
Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Boxall PC, Louviere JJ, Williams M (1997):
Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in
Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmen-
tal Valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 32, 65–84
Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1998): Stated
preference approaches for measuring passive use value: choice ex-
periments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics 80, 64–75
Adamowicz WL, Louviere JJ, Williams M (1994): Combining revealed
and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities.
J Environ Econ Manag 26, 271–292
Alberini A, Chiabai A, Muehlenbachs L (2005): Using expert judgment
to assess adaptive capacity to climate change: evidence from a con-
joint choice survey. 106.2005, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milano
Alberini A, Tonin S, Turvani M, Chiabai A (2007): Paying for perma-
nence: public preferences for contaminated site cleanup. J Risk Un-
certainty 34, 155–178
254
Subject Area 7
Alriksson S, Öberg T (2008): Conjoint Analysis: A useful tool for as-
sessing preferences for environmental issues (Letter to the Editor).
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (2) 119
Álvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N (2002): Using conjoint analysis to quantify
public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms.
An example from Spain. Energ Policy 30, 107–116
Álvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N, Barberán R, Lázaro A (2007): Choice
modeling at the 'market stall': individual versus collective interest in
environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 60, 743–751
Anderson RC, Hansen EN (2004): The impact of environmental certifi-
cation on preferences for wood furniture: a conjoint analysis ap-
proach. Forest Prod J 54, 42–50
Auty S (1995): Using conjoint analysis in industrial marketing. Ind
Market Manag 24, 191–206
Baarsma BE (2003): The valuation of the IJmeer nature reserve us-
ing conjoint analysis. Env Resourc Econ 25, 343–356
Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-
Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden
R, Swanson J (2002): Economic valuation with stated preference
techniques. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 458 pp
Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J (1981): Assessing the potential demand
for electrical cars. J Econometrics 17, 1–19
Belcher KW, Germann AE, Schmutz JK (2007): Beef with environmen-
tal and quality attributes: Preferences of environmental group and
general population consumers in Saskatchewan, Canada. Agr Hum
Values 24, 333–342
Ben-Akiva M, McFadden D, Train K, Walker J, Bhat C, Bierlaire M,
Bolduc D, Boersch-Supan A, Brownstone D, Bunch DS, Daly A, de
Palma A, Gopinath d, Karlstorm A, Munizaga MA (2002): Hy-
brid choice models: progress and challenges. Marketing Letters 13,
163–175
Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman S (1985): Discrete choice analysis: theory and
application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge
Bennett J, Blamey R (2001): The choice modelling approach to envi-
ronmental valuation. Edward Elgar
Bennett J, Rolfe J, Morrison M (2001): Remnant Vegetation and wet-
lands protection: non-market valuation. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds),
The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward
Elgar, pp 93–114
Berger IE, Kanetkar V (1995): Increasing environmental sensitivity via
workplace experiences. J Public Policy Mark 14, 205–216
Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright RE (2006): Valuing the attributes of
renewable energy investments. Energ Policy 34, 1004–1014
Bigsby H, Ozanne LK (2002): The purchase decision: consumers
and environmentally certified wood products. Forest Prod J 52,
100–105
Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006a): Using a choice experi-
ment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes:
the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecol Econ 60, 145–156
Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006b): Using economic valua-
tion techniques to inform water resources management: A survey
and critical appraisal of available techniques and an applicati. Sci
Total Environ 365, 105–122
Blamey R, Bennett J, Louviere J, Morrison M, Rolfe J (1999): The use
of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies, Univer-
sity of NSW, Camberra
Blamey R, Bennett J (2001): Yea-saying and validation of a choice model
of green product choice. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds), The choice
modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, pp
178–201
Blamey R, Bennett J, Louviere Jordan J, Morrison M (2001): Green
product choice. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds), The choice model-
ling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, pp 115–
132
Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Louviere JJ (2002): Attribute causality in envi-
ronmental choice modelling. Env Resourc Econ 23, 167–186
Blomkvist O, Ekdahl F, Gustafsson A (2003): Non–geometric Plackett-
Burman Designs in conjoint analysis. In: Gustafsson A, Herrman A,
Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement, methods and application.
Springer, pp 187–208
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Subject Area 7
Bonnieux F, Rainelli P, Vermersch D (1998): Estimating the supply of
environmental benefits by agriculture: a french case study. Environ
Resourc Econ 11, 135–153
Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J (1996): A
comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valua-
tion. Ecol Econ 18, 243–253
Brey R, Riera P, Mogas J (2007): Estimation of forest values using choice
modeling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecol Econ 64, 305–312
Brown TC, Nannini D, Gorter R, Bell P, Peterson GL (2002): Judged
Seriousness of Environmental Losses: Reliability and Cause of Loss.
Ecol Econ 42, 479–491
Brownstone D, Bunch DS, Train K (2000): Joint mixed logit models of
stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Trans-
port Res B-Meth 34, 315–338
Brönn PS, Olson EL (1999): Mapping the strategic thinking of public
relations managers in a crisis situation: an illustrative example using
conjoint analysis. Public Relat Rev 25, 351–368
Bullock CH, Elston DA, Chalmers NA (1998): An application of eco-
nomic choice experiments to a traditional land use-deer hunting and
landscape change in the Scottish Highlands. J Environ Manage 52,
335–351
Bunch DS, Bradley M, Golog TF, Kitamura R (1993): Demand for clean-
fuel vehicles in California: a discrete choice stated preference pilot
project. Transport Res A–Pol 27, 237–253
Caplan A, Grijalva T, Jackson–Smith D (2007): Using choice question
formats to determine compensable values: the case of a landfill-sit-
ing process. Ecol Econ 60, 834–846
Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Liljenstolpe C (2003): Valuing wetland at-
tributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecol Econ 47, 95–
103
Cattin P, Wittink DR (1982): Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a
survey. J Marketing 46, 44–53
Chattopadhyay S, Braden JB, Patunru A (2005): Benefits of hazardous
waste cleanup: new evidence from survey– and market based prop-
erty value approaches. Contemporary Economic Policy 23, 357–375
Chen C (2001): Design for the environment: a quality-based model for
green product development. Manage Sci 47, 250–263
Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2006): Analysing the so-
cial benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference
methods. Ecol Econ 58, 850–861
Colombo S, Calatrava–Requena J, Hanley N (2007): Testing choice
experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. Am J
Agr Econ 89, 135–151
Concu GB (2007): Investigating distance effects on environmental
values: a choice modelling approach. Aust J Agr Resour Ec 51,
175–194
Dagsvik JK, Wennemo T, Wetterwald DG, Aaberge R (2002): Poten-
tial demand for alternative fuel vehicles. Transport Res B-Meth
36, 361–384
Damigos D (2006): An overview of environmental valuation methods
for the mining industry. J Clean Prod 14, 234–247
Daniels RF, Hensher DA (2000): Valuation of environmental impacts
of transport projects. J Transp Econ Policy 34, 189–214
Darmon RY, Rouziès D (1999): Internal validity of conjoint analysis
under alternative measurement procedures. J Bus Res 46
de Dios Ortúzar J, Rodrígues G (2002): Valuing reductions in envi-
ronmental pollution in a residential location context. Transport
Res D-Tr E 7, 407–427
Earnhart D (2001): Combining revealed and stated preference meth-
ods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land
Econ 77, 12–29
Ewing G, Sarigöllü E (2000): Assessing consumer preferences for clean–
fuel vehicles: A discrete choice experiment. J Public Policy Mark
19, 106–118
Farber S, Griner B (2000a): Using conjoint analysis to value ecosystem
change. Environ Sci Technol 34, 1407–1412
Farber S, Griner B (2000b): Valuing watershed quality improvements
using conjoint analysis. Ecol Econ 34, 63–76
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Conjoint Analysis
Foster V, Mourato S (2000): Valuing the multiple impacts of pesticide
use in the UK: a contingent ranking approach. J Agr Econ 51, 1–21
Foster V, Mourato S (2003): Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope.
Env Resourc Econ 24, 141–160
Freeman MA (2003): The measurement of environmental and resource
values. RFF Press, Washington DC
Gan C, Luzar EJ (1993): A conjoint analysis of waterfoul hunting in
Louisiana. J Agr Appl Econ 25, 36–45
Garber-Yonts B, Kerkvliet J, Johnson R (2004): Public values for
biodiversity conservation policies in the Oregon coast range. Forest
Sci 50, 589–602
Garrod GD, Willis KG (1997): The non–use benefits of enhancing for-
est biodiversity: a contingent ranking study. Ecol Econ 21, 45–61
Garrod GD, Willis KG (1998a): Using contingent ranking to estimate the
loss of amenity value for inland waterways from public utility service
structure. Environ Resourc Econ 12, 241–247
Garrod GD, Willis KG (1998b): Estimating lost amenity due to landfill
waste disposal. Resour Conserv Recy 22, 83–95
Goossen M, Langers F (2000): Assessing quality of rural areas in the
Netherlands: finding the most important indicators for recreation.
Landscape Urban Plan 46, 241–251
Gordon J, Chapman R, Blamey R (2001): Assessing the options for the
Canberra water supply: an application of choice modelling. In:
Bennett J, Blamey R (eds), The choice modelling approach to envi-
ronmental valuation. Edward Elgar, pp 73–92
Green PE, Rao VR (1971): Conjoint measurement for quantifying judge-
mental data. J Marketing Res 8, 355–363
Green PE, Srinivasan V (1978): Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Re-
search: Issues and Outlook. J Consum Res 5, 103–123
Green PE (1984): Hybrid models for conjoint analysis: an expository
review. J Marketing Res 21, 155–169
Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990): Conjoint analysis in marketing: new
developments with implications for research and practice. J Mar-
keting 54, 3–20
Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y (2001): Thirty years of conjoint analy-
sis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31, S56–S73
Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006): Valuing environmental resources:
a constructive approach. In: Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (eds), The con-
struction of preference. Cambridge University Press, pp. 609–627
Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (2003a): Conjoint analysis as an
instrument of market research practice. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann
A , Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement, methods and applica-
tions. Springer, pp 5–46
Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (2003b): Conjoint Measurement
– Methods and Applications. Springer Verlag, Berlin
Haaijer R, Wedel M (2003): Conjoint choice experiments: general char-
acteristics and alternative model specifications. In: Gustafsson A,
Herrmann A, Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement, methods and
applications. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 371–412
Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson
D, Crabtree B (1998a): Contingent valuation versus choice experi-
ments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in
Scotland. J Agr Econ 49, 1–15
Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz WL (1998b): Using choice experi-
ments to value the environment – design issues, current experience
and future prospects. Environ Resourc Econ 11, 413–428
Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001): Choice modelling approaches:
a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surveys 15
Hanley N, Adamowicz WL, Wright RE (2005): Price vector effects in
choice experiments: an empirical test. Resource Energy Econ 27,
227–234
Hanley N, Wright RE, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006): Estimating the eco-
nomic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experi-
ments: an application to the water framework directive. J Environ
Manage 78, 183–193
Hanley N, Colombo S, Mason P, Johns H (2007): The reform of sup-
port mechanisms for upland farming: paying for public goods in the
severely disadvantaged areas of England. J Agr Econ 58, 433–453
255
Conjoint Analysis
Hauser JR, Rao VR (2003): Conjoint analysis, related modelling, and
applications. In: Wind Y (ed), Marketing Research and Modelling:
Progress and Prospects: A Tribute to Paul E. Green. Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, USA, pp 364
Heaefele MA, Loomis JB (2001): Improving statistical efficiency and
testing robustness of conjoint marginal valations. Am J Agr Econ
83, 1321–1327
Hearne RR, Salinas ZM (2002): The use of choice experiments in the
analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa
Rica. J Environ Manage 65, 153–163
Hensher DA, Louviere JJ, Swait J (1999): Combining sources of prefer-
ence data. J Econometrics 89, 197–221
Hensher DA, Shore N, Train K (2005): Households willingness to pay
for water service attributes. Environ Resourc Econ 32, 509–531
Herrmann A, Schmidt-Gallas D, Huber F (2003): Adaptive conjoint
analysis: understanding the methodology and assessing reliability
and validity. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (eds), Con-
joint measurement – methods and applications. Springer Verlag, pp
305–329
Hong S-k, Kim J-h, Kim S-i (2003): Implications of potential green tour-
ism development. Ann Tourism Res 30, 323–341
Hope RA (2006): Evaluating water policy scenarios against the priori-
ties of the rural poor. World Dev 34, 167–179
Horne P, Petajisto L (2003): Preferences for alternative moose manage-
ment regimes among Finnish landowners: A choice experiment ap-
proach. Land Econ 79, 472–482
Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005): Multiple-use management
of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For-
est Ecol Manag 207, 189–199
Horne P (2006): Forest owners acceptance of incentive based policy
instruments in forest biodiversity conservation – a choice experi-
ment based approach. Silva Fenn 40, 169–178
Huu Tuan T, Navrud S (2007): Valuing cultural heritage in developing
countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice
modelling estimates. Environ Resourc Econ 38, 51–69
Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2004): Weight-
ing across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of
conjoint analysis. Int J LCA 9, 196–205
Jiang Y, Swallow SK, McGonagle MP (2005): Context–sensitive ben-
efit transfer using stated preference choice models: specification and
convergent validity for policy analysis. Environ Resourc Econ 31,
477–499
Jin J, Wang Z, Ran S (2006a): Comparison of contingent valuation and
choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao.
Ecol Econ 57, 430–441
Jin J, Wang Z, Ran S (2006b): Estimating the public preferences for
solid waste management programmes using choice experiments in
Macao. Waste Manage Res 24, 301–309
Johnson FR, Desvousges WH (1997): Estimating Stated Preferences with
rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of
energy programs. J Environ Econ Manag 34, 79–99
Kallas Z, Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M (2007): Are citizens willing to
pay for agricultural multifunctionality? Agr Econ 36, 405–419
Kelly J, Haider W, Williams PW, Englund K (2007): Stated preferences
of tourists for eco-efficient destination planning options. Tourism
Manage 28, 377–390
Lareau TJ, Rae DA (1989): Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: an
application of contingent ranking technique. Southern Econ J 55,
728–742
Lawrence KS (2005): Assessing the value of recreational sea angling in
South West England. Fisheries Manag Ecol 12, 369–375
Leitham S, McQuaid RW, Nelson JD (2000): The influence of transport
on industrial location choice: a stated preference experiment. Trans-
port Res A-Pol 34, 515–535
Levine J, Frank LD (2007): Transportation and land-use preferences
and residents’ neighbourhood choices: the sufficiency of compact
development in the Atlanta region. Transportation 34, 255–274
256
Subject Area 7
Li C-Z, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Tahvonen O (2004): Using
choice experiments to value the Natura 2000 conservation programs
in Finland. Environ Resourc Econ 29, 361–374
Lindhjem H (2007): 20 years of stated preference valuation of non–
timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis. J For-
est Econ 12, 251–277
Lockwood M (1999): Preference structures, property rights, and paired
comparisons. Environ Resourc Econ 13, 107–122
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000): Stated choice methods, analy-
sis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Louviere JJ, Woodworth G (1983): Design and analysis of simulated
consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on
aggregate data. J Marketing Res 20, 350–367
Louviere JJ (1988): Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences. J
Transp Econ Policy 22, 93–120
Louviere JJ (1992): Experimental choice analysis: introduction and over-
view. J Bus Res 24, 89–95
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000): Stated choice methods.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (2003): Conjoint preference elicita-
tion methods in the broader context of random utility theory prefer-
ence elicitation methods. In: Gustafsson A, Herrman A , Huber F
(eds), Conjoint measurement – methods and applications. Springer
Verlag, pp 331–370
Luce RD, Tukey JW (1964): Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A
New Type of Fundamental Measurement. J Math Psychol 1, 1–27
Luce RD (1996): The ongoing dialog between empirical science and
measurement theory. J Math Psychol 40, 78–98
Lusk J, Nilsson T, Foster K (2007): Public preferences and private choices:
Effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally
certified pork. Environ Resour Econ 36, 499–521
Machado FS, Mourato S (2002): Evaluating the multiple benefits of
marine water quality improvements: how important are health risk
reductions? J Environ Manage 65, 239–250
Mackenzie J (1993): A comparison of contingent preference models.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 593–603
Madureira L, Rambonilaza T, Karpinski I (2007): Review of methods
and evidence for economic valuation of agricultural non-commod-
ity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broader
decisional contexts. Agr Ecosyst Environ 120, 5–20
McCullough D (2002): A user's guide to conjoint analysis. Market Res
14, 18–23
McFadden D (1974): Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice
behaviour. In: Zambreka P (ed), Frontiers in Econometrics. Aca-
demic Press, pp 105–142
Mehta R, Moore WL, Pavia TM (1992): An examination of the use of
unacceptable levels in conjoint analysis. J Consum Res 19, 470–476
Milon JW, Scrogin D (2006): Latent preferences and valuation of wet-
land ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 56, 162–175
Mogas J, Riera P, Bennett J (2006): A comparison of contingent valua-
tion and choice modelling with second-order interactions. J Forest
Econ 12, 5–30
Moore WL, Louviere JJ, Verma R (1999): Using Conjoint Analysis to
Help Design Product Platforms. J Prod Innovat Manag 16, 27–39
Moore WL (2004): A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and
choice-based conjoint analysis models. Int J Res Mark 21, 299–312
Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, Louviere JJ (2002): Choice model-
ing and tests of benefit transfer. American journal of Agricultural
Economics 84, 161–170
Morton KM, Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC (1995): Economic effects of
environmental quality change on recreational hunting in northwest-
ern Saskatchewan: a contingent behaviour analysis. Can J Forest
Res 25, 912–920
Mulye R (1998): An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP
and two variants of conjoint analysis. J Behav Decis Making 11,
263–280
Nakatani J, Aramaki T, Hanaki K (2007): Applying choice experiments
to valuing the different types of environmental issues in Japan. J
Environ Manage 84, 362–376
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Subject Area 7
Opaluch J, Swallow S, Weaver T, Wessells C, Wichelns D (1993): Evalu-
ating impacts from noxious facilities: including public preferences
in current siting mechanisms. J Environ Econ Manag 24, 41–59
Oppewal H, Louviere Jordan J, Timmermans HJP (2000): Modifying
conjoint methods to model managers reactions to business environ-
mental trends: an application to modeling retailer reactions to sales
trends. J Bus Res 50, 245–257
Othman J, Bennett J, Blamey R (2004): Environmental values and re-
source management options: a choice modelling experience in Ma-
laysia. Environ Devel Econ 9, 803–824
Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C, Wiersma G (2003): Household prefer-
ences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. J Econ Psycol
24, 49–64
Powe NA, Garrod GD, McMahon PL (2005): Mixing methods within
stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and
post–questionnaire qualitative analysis. Ecol Econ 52, 513–526
Probert EJ, Dawson GF, Cockrill A (2005): Evaluating preferences
within the composting industry in Wales using a conjoint analysis
approach. Conserv Recycling 45, 128–141
Ready R, Fisher A, Guignet D, Stedman R, Wang J (2006): A pilot test
of a new stated preference valuation method: continuous attribute-
based stated choice. Ecol Econ 52, 247–255
Reutterer T, Kotzab HW (2000): The use of conjoint-analysis for mea-
suring preferences in supply chain design. Ind Market Manag 29,
27–35
Robinson JJ (2002): Environmental value transfer: an application for
the southern east Queensland waterways. Water Sci Technol 45,
91–100
Roe B, Boyle KJ, Reisl MF (1996): Using conjoint analysis to derive
estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manag 31,
145–159
Roe B, Teisl MF, Levy A, Russell M (2001): US consumers' willing-
ness to pay for green electricity. Energ Policy 29, 917–925
Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2000): Choice modelling and its poten-
tial application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol Econ 35,
289–302
Rutherford MB, Knetsch JL, Brown TC (1998): Assessing Environ-
mental Losses: Judgments of Importance and Damage Schedules.
Harvard Environ Law 22, 51–101
Ryan M, Bate C, Eastmond C, Ludbrook A (2001a): Use of discrete choice
experiments to elicit preferences. Quality Health Care 10, i55–i60
Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen E, Russell E, Napper
M, Robb C (2001b): Eliciting public preferences for health care: a
systematic review of techniques. Health Technocol Assess 5, 1–186
Saelensminde K (1999): Stated choice valuation of urban traffic air
pollution and noise. Transport Res D-Tr E 4, 13–27
Saelensminde K (2006): Causes and consequences of lexicographic
choices in stated choice studies. Ecol Econ 59, 331–340
Sammer K, Wüstenhagen R (2006): The influence of eco–labelling on
consumer behaviour – results of a discrete choice analysis for wash-
ing machines. Bus Strat Env 15, 185–199
Sasao T (2004): An estimation of the social costs of landfill siting
using a choice experiment. Waste Manage 24, 753–762
Sattler H, Hensel-Börner S (2003): A comparison of conjoint mea-
surement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustafsson A,
Herrman A, Huber F (eds), Conjoint measurement – methods and
applications. Springer Verlag, pp 147–159
Sayadi s, Gonzales Roa C, Calatrava Requena J (2005): Ranking ver-
sus scale rating in conjoint analysis: evaluating landscapes in moun-
tainous regions in southeastern Spain. Ecol Econ 55, 539–550
Scholl A, Manthey L, Helm R, Steiner M (2005): Solving multiattribute
design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analy-
sis: an empirical comparison. Eur J Oper Res 164, 760–777
Schroeder HW, Louviere JJ (1999): Stated choice models for predicting
the impact of user fees at public recreation sites. J Leisure Res 31,
300–324
Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR (2004): Valuing environmental benefits
of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee water-
shed in Florida. Ecol Econ 2004, 349–359
Env Sci Pollut Res 15 (3) 2008
Conjoint Analysis
Spash CL (2007): Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in
combining economic and political processes to value environmental
change. Ecol Econ 63, 690–699
Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2006): Why are energy policies
acceptable and effective? Environment and Behaviour 38, 92–111
Stevens TH, Belkner R, Dennis D (2000): Comparison of contingent
valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecol Econ
32, 63–74
Straughan R, Roberts J (1999): Environmental segmentation alterna-
tives: a look at green consumer behaviour in the new millennium. J
Consum Market 16, 558–575
Stärk KDC, Wingstrand A, Dahl J, Mögelmose V, Lo Fo Wong DMA
(2002): Differences and similarities among experts opinions on Sal-
monella enterica dynamics in swine pre-harvest. Prev Vet Med 53,
7–20
Turpie J, Joubert A (2001): Estimating potential impacts of a change in
river quality on the tourism value of Kruger National Park: an ap-
plication of travel cost, contingent and conjoint valuation methods.
Water SA 27, 387–398
Tversky A (1967): A general study of polynomial conjoint measure-
ment. J Math Psychol 4, 1–20
Urama KC, Hodge ID (2006): Are stated preferences convergent with
revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria. Ecol Econ
59, 24–37
van der Meulen HAB, Snoo GRd, Wossink GAA (1996): Farmers' Per-
ception of Unsprayed Crop Edges in the Netherlands. J Environ
Manage 47, 241–255
Walker J, Ben-Akiva M (2002): Generalized random utility model. Math
Soc Sci 43, 303–343
Wardman M, Bristow AL (2004): Traffic related noise and air quality
valuations: evidence from stated preference residential choice mod-
els. Transport Res D-Tr E 9, 1–27
Wattage P, Mardle S, Pascoe S (2005): Evaluation of the importance of
fisheries management objectives using choice experiments. Ecol Econ
55, 85–95
Veisten K (2007): Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture:
Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valu-
ation. J Forest Econ 13, 29–48
Venkatachalam L (2004): The contingent valuation method: a review.
Environ Impact Asses 24, 89–124
Wernstedt K, Meyer PB, Alberini A (2006): Attracting private invest-
ment to contaminated properties: the value of public interventions.
J Policy Anal Manag 25, 347–369
Winslott Hiselius L (2005): Using Choice Experiments to Assess People's
Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials. Risk
Anal 25, 1199–1214
Wittink DR, Cattin P (1989): Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an
update. J Marketing 53, 91–96
Wittink DR, Vriens M, Burhenne W (1994): Commercial use of con-
joint analysis in Europe: results and critical reflections. Int J Res
Mark 11, 41–52
Xu ZM, Cheng GD, Bennett J, Zhang ZQ, Long AH, Kunio H (2007):
Choice modeling and its application to managing the Ejina Region,
China. J Arid Environ 69, 331–343
Zhai G, Fukuzono T, Ikeda S (2007): Multi-attribute evaluation of flood
management in Japan: a choice experiment approach. Water Environ
J 21, 265–274
Zinkhan CF, Holmes TP, Mercer ED (1997): Conjoint analysis: a pref-
erence-based approach for the accounting of multiple benefits in
Southern forest management. South J Appl For 21, 180–186
Electronic references
http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com 2006–03–10
http://www.questionpro.com 2006–03–10
http://www.surveyz.com 2006–03–10
Received: December 27th, 2007
Accepted: March 16th, 2008
OnlineFirst: March 17th, 2008
257