Conference Agenda

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) typically elicit a single “best” alternative per choice task, mirroring market settings in which only one chosen option is observed. Alternative elicitation formats—such as Best–Worst and Best–Best—collect additional preference information per task and are often motivated by gains in statistical efficiency. Yet efficiency gains require that multi-stage responses be behaviourally consistent and that the elicitation protocol not distort choice behaviour. We provide a systematic split-sample comparison of three elicitation formats—Best-only, Best–Worst, and Best–Best—in a DCE valuing peatland restoration outcomes in Scotland. Respondents were randomly assigned to treatments that differ only in the elicitation protocol, while the choice tasks and experimental design were held constant. Using mixed logit models estimated in preference space (with treatment-specific scale) and willingness-to-pay space, we test two questions. First, does the elicitation format affect first-best choices, even when the first question is identical across treatments? Second, are preferences recovered from follow-up responses equivalent when the follow-up elicits the “worst-of-two” versus the “best-of-two,” which are informationally equivalent in theory? We find that (i) first-best preferences are not invariant to the elicitation format—consistent with an observer effect—and (ii) follow-up responses reveal format-dependent preference information, including systematic differences between worst-of-two and best-of-two framing. The results caution against treating ranked-elicitation formats as an “insurance strategy” for small samples and have direct implications for welfare measurement and DCE design.

In this paper we investigate whether making environmental attitudes salient before a choice experiment (CE) affects stated preferences for climate policies. The study exploits a randomized split-sample design embedded in a CE on mitigation measures implemented by accommodation establishments in Mallorca (Spain). Tourists were randomly assigned to questionnaires in which an attitudinal battery was administered either before or after the CE. Preferences are estimated with panel random-parameters logit models allowing for heteroskedastic scale, and welfare is measured as distributions of marginal willingness to pay (WTP). Eliciting environmental attitudes before the CE leads to a marked reduction in WTP for all mitigation attributes: mean WTP in the “attitudes-before” condition is between 75% and 90% lower than in the “attitudes-after” condition. Ancillary analyses rule out explanations based on sample composition, task exposure or fatigue and instead point to a framing/priming mechanism that changes which dimensions of the underlying normative structure are brought to bear on choices. Our results show that environmental attitudinal blocks are not neutral survey add-ons, but a consequential design choice that can shape welfare estimates in environmental valuation and climate-policy evaluation. We also call for greater attention to question order whenever attitudinal constructs are integrated into CE based policy appraisals.

This paper studies two types of preference shifts in the context of the  ght against climate change: an increase in the preference toward green consumption and an increase in the aversion to working in brown companies. The impacts of these shocks on brown consumption in partial and in general equilibrium are analyzed. The consequences of these shocks are also compared to those of more common shocks: an increase in the carbon tax and an improvement of the productivity of green technology. Several results emerge from the analysis. First, we quantify the magnitude of the rebound e ects in general equilibrium. Second, we show that if the energy transition is advanced enough at the initial equilibrium, adopting greener preferences does not lead to a decrease in real income. Third, we are able to compare the e ectiveness of a carbon tax and a green preference shock in reducing brown consumption, using as a metric the decrease in brown consumption per unit of real income loss. Finally, we extend the model to a two-agent setting, where only a part of the population experiences green preference shocks, and identify the condition under which real income increases for both types of agents.

Effective climate mitigation requires policy interventions such as pricing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, public resistance, especially toward tax-based measures, limits political action. While prior research highlights factors shaping climate-policy support, it often overlooks systematic differences across ideological groups. This study investigates how political ideology and partisan framing influence support for climate policies in Sweden. Using a survey experiment with frames derived from real political debates and party manifestos, we test whether ideologically congruent messaging increases support for policy packages or specific design features. We find ideological differences in baseline support, with left-leaning voters more supportive overall. However, congruent frames do not raise support; instead, a left-green framing reduces support of left leaning voters relative to a neutral frame, suggesting reactance or backlash. Left-leaning voters also adjust their preferences for policy design features in response to framing, whereas right-leaning voters remain largely unaffected. These findings underscore that framing can inadvertently repel key voter segments, with important implications for climate-policy communication and design.