The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches
Open accessAbstract
It is often difficult to determine what actually was done in work involving data collected with stated preference surveys because the terms used to describe various procedures have ambiguous and sometimes conflicting meanings. Further, terms used to describe data collection procedures often are confounded with terms used to describe statistical techniques. We call for the use of a common nomenclature to describe what was done in a data collection effort for stated preference studies, and take a first step at setting out such nomenclature. We only seek to improve clarity in the communication of research results and take no position here on appropriateness of particular procedures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Decision, Probability and Utility · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,474
Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior
McFadden, D. L. (1972) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 14,203
Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition
Rosen, S. (1974) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/260169 · Cited by 10,603
Cragg, J. G., & Zarembka, P. (1975) · The Canadian Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/134075 · Cited by 8,342
Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., Swait, J. D., & Adamowicz, W. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511753831 · Cited by 4,595
Self-citationUsing surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method
(1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-0417 · Cited by 4,215
Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method
Becker, G. M., Degroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964) · Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/bs.3830090304 · Cited by 2,640
Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal
Torrance, G. W. (1986) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2 · Cited by 2,203
Statistical Efficiency of Double‐Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation
Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.2307/1242453 · Cited by 1,824
Cited by
Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies
Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W. (., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., et al. (2017) · Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists · doi:10.1086/691697 · Cited by 1,430
Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis
Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Carson, R. T. (2010) · Journal of Choice Modelling · doi:10.1016/s1755-5345(13)70014-9 · Cited by 738
Self-citationA systematic review of drivers influencing consumer willingness to pay for organic food
Katt, F., & Meixner, O. (2020) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2020.04.029 · Cited by 298
Metadata
- Authors
- Carson, R. T., & Louviere, J. J.
- Venue
- Environmental and Resource Economics
- Published
- 2011-01-12
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 539-559
- ISSN
- 0924-6460 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1502
- OpenAlex
- W2102274893
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 66
- FWCI
- 42.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10640-010-9450-x
- The paper
- Carson, R. T., & Louviere, J. J. (2011). A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9450-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
