Rakotonarivo O Sarobidy, Schaafsma Marije, Hockley Neal
School of Environment, Natural Resource and Geography (SENRGY), Bangor University, LL57 2UW Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales, UK; Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK; Centre for Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.
J Environ Manage. 2016 Dec 1;183:98-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.032. Epub 2016 Aug 27.
While discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in the field of environmental valuation, they remain controversial because of their hypothetical nature and the contested reliability and validity of their results. We systematically reviewed evidence on the validity and reliability of environmental DCEs from the past thirteen years (Jan 2003-February 2016). 107 articles met our inclusion criteria. These studies provide limited and mixed evidence of the reliability and validity of DCE. Valuation results were susceptible to small changes in survey design in 45% of outcomes reporting reliability measures. DCE results were generally consistent with those of other stated preference techniques (convergent validity), but hypothetical bias was common. Evidence supporting theoretical validity (consistency with assumptions of rational choice theory) was limited. In content validity tests, 2-90% of respondents protested against a feature of the survey, and a considerable proportion found DCEs to be incomprehensible or inconsequential (17-40% and 10-62% respectively). DCE remains useful for non-market valuation, but its results should be used with caution. Given the sparse and inconclusive evidence base, we recommend that tests of reliability and validity are more routinely integrated into DCE studies and suggest how this might be achieved.
虽然离散选择实验（DCEs）在环境价值评估领域的应用日益广泛，但由于其实验性质具有假设性，且其结果的可靠性和有效性存在争议，所以该方法仍颇具争议。我们系统回顾了过去十三年（2003年1月至2016年2月）间有关环境DCEs有效性和可靠性的证据。107篇文章符合我们的纳入标准。这些研究为DCEs的可靠性和有效性提供了有限且参差不齐的证据。在报告可靠性指标的结果中，45%的估值结果易受调查设计中微小变化的影响。DCEs的结果通常与其他陈述偏好技术的结果一致（收敛效度），但假设偏差很常见。支持理论有效性（与理性选择理论假设一致）的证据有限。在内容效度测试中，2%至90%的受访者对调查的某个特征提出抗议，相当一部分人认为DCEs难以理解或无关紧要（分别为17%至40%和10%至62%）。DCEs对于非市场估值仍然有用，但其结果应谨慎使用。鉴于证据基础薄弱且尚无定论，我们建议将可靠性和有效性测试更常规地纳入DCEs研究，并提出了实现这一目标的方法。
