Preferences heterogeneity and choice experiments: A random parameters logit applied to the demand of walnuts

Dena M. Camarena, Ana I. Sanjuán


Consumers’ stated preferences towards walnuts are studied by means of a choice experiment, with a double objective: first, to identify the main attributes searched by consumer at purchase and second, to analyse the chances for the introduction into the Spanish market of the Pecan variety. From this study, commercial guidelines may be derived, that helps distribution and import companies to commercialise this nut. A mixed or random parameters logit is estimated which relaxes the IIA property (independence of irrelevant alternatives) present in the logit model with fixed parameters. In a mixed logit, coefficients of each attribute/level vary randomly across consumers, reflecting the heterogeneity of individuals’ preferences. This model also allows estimate efficiently the parameters when each individual chooses several times, as in the present study.


mixed or random parameters logit; stated preferences; choice experiment; heterogeneous preferences; walnuts

Subject classification


Full Text:



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

Adamowicz, W.; Boxall, P.; Williams, M. y Louviere, J.J. (1998). «Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation». American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80:64-75.

Alfnes, F. (2004). «Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a mixed logit model». European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(1):19-37.

Ben-Akiva, M. y Bierlaire, M. (1999). «Discrete choice methods and their applications in short term travel decisions» in R. Hall, ed., The Handbook of Transportation Science. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 5-33.

Ben-Akiva, M. y Morikawa, T. (1990). «Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions». Tranportation Research, 24:485-495.

Bennett, J. y Blamey, R. (2001) (Eds.). The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Bonnet, C. y Simioni, M. (2001). «Assessing consumer response to Protected Designation of Origin labelling: a mixed multinomial logit approach». European Journal of Agricultural Economics, 28(4):433-449.

Boyle, K.J.; Holmes, T.P.; Teisl, M.F. y Roe, B. (2001). «A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats». American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(2):441-454.

Burton, M.; Rigby, D.; Young, T. y James, S. (2001). «Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK». European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4):479-498.

Burton, M. y Pearse, D. (2002). «Consumer attitudes towards genetic modification, functional foods, and microorganisms: a choice modelling experiment for beer». AgBioForum, 5(2):51-58.

Dhar, R. (1997). «Consumer preference for a no-choice option». Journal of Consumer Research, 24:215-231.

Ekinci, S. (1997). «La demanda de almendra y nuez en España una aplicación del modelo de doble obstáculo (double Hurdle)». Mimeo IAMZ- CIHEAM.

Elrod, T.; Louviere, J.J. y Davey, K.S. (1992). «An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice based conjoint models». Journal of Marketing Research, 29:368-377.

Enneking, U. (2004). «Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label». European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(2):205-223.

Garrod, G.D.; Scarpa, R., y K.G. Willis. (2002). «Estimating The Benefits of Traffic Calming on Through Routes: A Choice Experiment Approach». Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. May, 36(2), 211-231.

Gracia, A.; Ekinci, S. y Albisu, L.M. (2003). «Consumer’s buying decision process for nuts in Spain». New Medit, II (3):22-27.

Haaijer, M.E. (1999). «Modeling Conjoint Choice Experiments with the Probit Model». Labyrint Publications. The Netherlands.

Haaijer, R.; Kamakura,W. y Wedel, M. (2001). «The ‘no-choice’ alternative in conjoint choice experiments». Journal of the Market Research Society, 43(1):93-106.

Hanley, N.; MacMillan, D.; Wright, R.E.; Bullock, C.; Simpson, I.; Parsisson, D. y Crabtree, B. (1998). «Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland». Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(1):1-15.

Holmes, T.P.; Boyle, K.J.; Teisl, M.F. y Roe, B. (2002). «A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats: reply». American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(4):1172-1175.

James, S. y Burton, M. (2003). «Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system». The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47(4): 501-518.

Johnson, R. y Orme, B. (1996). «How many questions should you ask in choice based conjoint studies?». Art Forum, Beaver Creek.

Lawson, S. y Glowa, T. (2000). «Discrete choice experiments and traditional conjoint analysis ». Quirk’s Marketing Research Review (, Article number: 0592.

Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A. y Swait, J.D. (2000). «Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Application». Cambridge University Press.

Lusk, J.L. (2002). «A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats: comment». American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(4):1165-1171.

McFadden, D. (1973). «Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour» in: P. Zarembka (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York.

MAPA (2001). Anuario de estadística agroalimentaria. MAPA online

MAPA (2002). Anuario de estadística agroalimentaria. MAPA online

MERCASA (2003). Alimentación en España. Producción, industria, distribución y consumo.

Muncharaz, P. (2001). El Nogal. Técnicas de cultivo para la producción frutal. Ed. Mundi-Prensa.

Quagrainie, K.K.; Unterschultz, J. y Veeman, M. (1998). «Effects of product origin and selected demographics on consumer choice of red meats». Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46:201-219.

Revelt, D. y Train, K. (1998). «Incentives for appliance efficiency in a competitive energy environment: random parameters logit models of households’ choices». Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4):647-657.

Rigby, D. y Burton, M. (2003). Capturing preference heterogeneity in stated choice models: a random parameter logit model of the demand for GM food. Discussion Paper Series nº 0319. School of Economic Studies. The University of Manchester.

Roy, R. (1990). «Conjoint evolves into discrete choice modelling». Quirk’s Marketing Research Review (, Article number: 0879.

Rubey, L. y Lupi, F. (1997). «Predicting the effects of market reform in Zimbabwe: a stated preference approach». American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79:89-99.

Sanjuán, A.I.; Sánchez, M.; Gil, J.M.; Gracia, A. y Soler, F. (2003). «Brakes to organic market enlargement in Spain: consumers’ and retailers’ attitudes and willingness to pay». International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(2):134-144.

Scarpa, R.; Philippidis, G. y Spalatro, F. (2004) «‘Product-Country Images’ and Preference Heterogeneity for Mediterranean Food Products: A Discrete Choice Framework». Agribusiness (forthcoming).

Train, K.E. (1998). «Recreational demand models with taste differences over people». Land Economics, 74(2):230-239.

Train, K.E. (2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press.

Wu, J. (2002). «Data Use: Analyzing discrete choice data on monadic cards». Quirk’s Marketing Research Review (, Article number: 0987.

Abstract Views

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


  • There are currently no refbacks.

 Universitat Politècnica de València

e-ISSN: 2174-7350   ISSN: 1578-0732