Stated or inferred attribute non-attendance? A simulation approach


  • Petr Mariel Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)
  • David Hoyos Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)
  • Jürgen Meyerhoff Technical University of Berlin



Attribute non-attendance, Choice modelling, Environmental valuation, Random parameter logit


In the last few years, there has been a growing body of literature on how to detect and deal with the fact that some respondents seem to ignore one or more attributes in a discrete choice experiments.
This paper aims to analyse the performance of two econometric approaches devoted to solve this problem: the stated attribute non-attendance approach and the inferred attribute non-attendance approach. These approaches are examined further by two common ways of collecting information on attribute non-attendance: serial and choice task non-attendance. The results of the simulation experiments show firstly, that choice task non-attendance of one attribute causes biases in the estimation of all other parameters; and, secondly, that only serial non-attendance can be inferred successfully. The results are policy relevant because not treating, or treating this issue incorrectly may end up in biased welfare measures.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Petr Mariel, Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)

Depto Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística)

David Hoyos, Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)

Depto Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística)

Jürgen Meyerhoff, Technical University of Berlin

Institute for Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning.
Technical University of Berlin.


Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. (1994). “Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26: 271-292.

Alemu, M.H., Morback, M.R., Olsen, S.B. and Jensen, C.L. (2012). “Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 54(3): 333-359.

Beck, M.J., Rose J.M. and Hensher, D.A. (2011). Consistently inconsistent: The role of certainty, acceptability and scale in automobile choice. Working Paper ITLS-WP-11-07. The University of Sydney, Sydney.

Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Train, K., Walker, J., Bhat, C., Bierlaire, M., Bolduc, D., Boersch-Supan, A., Brownstone, D., Bunch, D.S., Daly, A., De Palma, A., Gopinath, D., Karlstrom, A. and Munizaga, M. (2002). “Hybrid choice models: Progress and challenges”. Marketing Letters, 13(3): 163-175.

Campbell, D., Hensher, D.A. and Scarpa, R. (2011). “Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: A latent class specification”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(8): 1061-1076,

Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G. and Scarpa, R. (2008). “Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41(3): 401-417.

Campbell, D. and Lorimer, V.S. (2009). “Accommodating attribute processing strategies in stated choice analysis: Do respondents do what they do?” Paper presented at the 17th Annual EAERE Conference, Amsterdam.

Cicia, G., Cembalo, L., Del Giudice, T. and Palladino, A. (2012). “Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey”. Energy Policy, 42: 59-66.

Czajkowski, M., Giergiczny, M. and Greene, W. (2012). Learning and fatigue effects revisited. The impact of accounting for unobservable preference and scale heterogeneity on perceived ordering effects in multiple choice task discrete choice experiments. Working paper No. 8/2012 (74). Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw.

Giergiczny, M., Valasiuk, S. and Żylicz, T. (2010). Irregular behaviour in stating preferences for nature protection. A choice experiment in Belarus. Working Paper No. 8/2010 (31). Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw.

Glerum, A., Atasoy, B., Monticone, A. and Bierlaire, M. (2011). “Adjectives qualifying individuals’ perceptions impacting on transport mode preferences”. Paper presented at the Second International Choice Modelling Conference, Leeds.

Hensher, D.A. (2004). “Identifying the influence of stated choice design dimensionality on willingness to pay for travel time savings”. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38(3): 425-446.

Hensher, D. and Greene, W. (2010). “Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification”. Empirical Economics, 39(2): 413-426.

Hensher, D.A. and Rose, J.M. (2009). “Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: implications for willingness to pay”. Transportation Research Part E, 45: 583-590.

Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M. and Bertoia, T. (2007). “The Implications on willingness to pay of a stochastic treatment of attribute processing in stated choice studies”. Transportation Research Part E, 43: 73-89.

Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M. and Greene, W.H. (2005). “The implications of willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes”. Transportation, 32: 203-222.

Hess, S. (2011). Impact of unimportant attributes in stated choice surveys. Working paper. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds.

Hess, S. and Beharry-Borg, N. (2012). “Accounting for latent attitudes in willingness-to-pay studies: The case of coastal water quality improvements in Tobago”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 52(1): 109-131.

Hess, S. and Hensher, D. (2010). “Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies”. Transportation Research Part B, 44: 781-790.

Hoyos, D. (2010). “The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments”. Ecological Economics, 69(2): 2372-2381.

Lancaster K. (1966). “A new approach to consumer theory”. Journal of Political Economy, 74: 132-157.

Louviere, J. and Hensher, D.A. (1982). “On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling”. Transportation Research Record, 890: 11-17.

Louviere J., Street, D.J. and Burgess, L. (2009). “Modelling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information”. Journal of Choice Modelling, 1(1): 128-163.

Louviere, J. and Woodworth, G. (1983). “Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data”. Journal of Marketing Research, 20: 350-367.

Meyerhoff, J. and Liebe, U. (2009). “Discontinuous preferences in choice experiments: Evidence at the choice task level”. Paper presented at the 17th Annual EAERE Conference, Amsterdam.

Paulrud, A. and Laitila, T. (2004). “Valuation of management policies for sport-fishing on Sweden’s Kaitum river”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47: 863-879.

Puckett, S.M. and Hensher, D.A. (2009). “Revealing the extent of process heterogeneity in choice analysis: An empirical assessment”. Transportation Research A, 43: 117-126.

Scarpa, R., Gilbride, T.J., Campbell, D. and Hensher, D.A. (2009). “Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation.” European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36(2): 151-174.

Scarpa, R., Thiene, M. and Hensher, D.A. (2010). “Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in non-market valuation of multiple park management services: Does it matter?” Land Economics, 86: 817-839.

Scarpa, R., Zanoli, R., Bruschi, V. and Naspetti, S. (2012). “Inferred and stated attribute non-attendance in food choice experiments”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(1): 165-180.

Tinch, D., Colombo, S. and Hanley, N. (2010). Experienced utility, decision utility and remembered utility: A choice experiment. Discussion paper in Economics, University of Stirling, Stirling.