Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/66796 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2010
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] Journal of Choice Modelling [ISSN:] 1755-5345 [Volume:] 3 [Issue:] 3 [Publisher:] University of Leeds, Institute for Transport Studies [Place:] Leeds [Year:] 2010 [Pages:] 57-72
Verlag: 
University of Leeds, Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds
Zusammenfassung: 
We briefly review and discuss traditional conjoint analysis (CA) and discrete choice experiments (DCEs), widely used stated preference elicitation methods in several disciplines. We pay particular attention to the origins and basis of CA, and show that it is generally inconsistent with economic demand theory, and is subject to several logical inconsistencies that make it unsuitable for use in applied economics, particularly welfare and policy assessment. We contrast this with DCEs that have a long-standing, well-tested theoretical basis in random utility theory, and we show why and how DCEs are more general and consistent with economic demand theory. Perhaps the major message, though, is that many studies that claim to be doing conjoint analysis are really doing DCE.
Schlagwörter: 
discrete choice experiments
conjoint analysis
random utility theory
Creative-Commons-Lizenz: 
cc-by-nc Logo
Dokumentart: 
Article
Erscheint in der Sammlung:

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
396.84 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.