Temporal stability of discrete choice values for preserving a cultural landscape: The Alto Douro Wine Region
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This article addresses the question of the stability of preferences over-time for preserving the attributes of the Alto Douro Wine Region, a cultural landscape world heritage site. A test–retest choice experiment is conducted with a broader time period of a five-year lag. Distinctly from the majority test–retest choice experiments, that assume scale homogeneity across respondents, a particular form of the generalised mixed logit model is applied to capture both scale heterogeneity for a pooled data set and data-specific scale heterogeneity effects. The results suggest the presence of a structural change between the two periods, indicating that the policy decision makers should be aware of the influence of external shocks on consumers’ preferences and on their willingness to pay for cultural heritage.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Economic and Environmental Valuation · Housing Market and Economics · Diverse Aspects of Tourism Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (40)
Show source-provided references
1. Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.029 ↗
2. Test–retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses10.2307/1241776 ↗
3. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome – an application to social care for older people10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.01.001 ↗
4. Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00402.x ↗
5. Constructed preference stability: a test–retest10.1080/21606544.2011.644922 ↗
6. Test–retest reliability of choice experiments in environmental valuation10.1007/s10640-012-9567-1 ↗
7. Do choice experiments produce more stable welfare measures than contingent valuation? A test–retest
8. Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: a test–retest10.1016/j.reseneeco.2014.09.001 ↗
9. The stability of retail shopping choices over time and across countries10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00043-4 ↗
10. Do stated preference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.001 ↗
11. Test-retest reliability of discrete choice experiment for valuations of QLU-C10D health states10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.012 ↗
12. Preference stability and choice consistency in discrete choice experiments10.1007/s10640-015-9913-1 ↗
13. Valuing congestion costs in the British Museum10.1093/oep/55.1.173 ↗
14. Valuing cultural heritage in a multi-attribute framework microeconomic perspectives and policy implications10.1016/j.socec.2003.08.009 ↗
15. A choice modeling application for Greek heritage attractions10.1177/0047287504272035 ↗
16. Estimating the marginal utility of different sections of an arts festival: the case of visitors to the South African National Arts Festival10.1080/0261436052000330410 ↗
17. Investigating how the attributes of live theatre productions influence consumption choices using conjoint analysis: the example of the National Arts Festival, South Africa10.1007/s10824-009-9097-z ↗
18. Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: a choice modeling approach10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.014 ↗
19. Evaluating individual preferences for the British Museum10.1007/s10824-010-9133-z ↗
20. Can people value the aesthetic and use services of urban sites? Evidence from a survey of Belfast residents10.1023/A:1026317209968 ↗
21. Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates10.1007/s10640-006-9056-5 ↗
22. Preservation of a rural and cultural landscape. Insights from the multinomial and error components logit model
23. Visitors’ preferences for preserving the attributes of a world heritage site10.1016/j.culher.2013.01.003 ↗
24. Wine and cultural heritage. The experience of the Alto Douro Wine Region10.1016/j.wep.2015.09.001 ↗
25. Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: a choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.031 ↗
26. Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: an illustration from the Basque Country10.1016/j.jfe.2012.05.002 ↗
27. Informing management strategies for a reserve: results from a discrete choice experiment survey10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.05.004 ↗
28. Beach Recreationalists’ willingness to pay and economic implications of coastal water quality problems in Hawaii10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.003 ↗
29. Hensher · 2015
30. Using choice experiments to value a world cultural heritage site: reflections on the experimental design10.1016/S1514-0326(13)60013-6 ↗
31. The Alto Douro Wine Region Greenway10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00156-7 ↗
32. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.006 ↗
33. Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources
34. Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models10.1007/s11116-010-9259-z ↗
35. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity10.1287/mksc.1090.0508 ↗
36. Learning and fatigue effects revisited. Investigating the effects of accounting for unobservable preference and scale heterogeneity10.3368/le.90.2.324 ↗
37. Demand
38. Valuing local environmental amenity with discrete choice experiments: spatial scope sensitivity and heterogeneous marginal utility of income10.1007/s10640-013-9648-9 ↗
39. The impacts of attribute level framing and changing cost levels on choice experiments value estimates
40. Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation10.1093/erae/jbp012 ↗