11,535 rated or chosen profiles from 490 respondents, in up to 8 tasks of 3 profiles varying on 4 attributes.

About this table

Description	Residents of Nordland, Troms and Finnmark (Norway; electronic survey, n = 490, the without-jobs half of a split sample) chose among the current-regulation scenario and two stricter-regulation scenarios on 8 cards varying coastal landscape (aquaculture/fishing-tourism facilities), beach waste, recreational catch and household tax; outcome is the preferred scenario.
Reference	Aanesen, M., & Armstrong, C. W. (2019). Trading off co-produced marine ecosystem services: Natural resource industries versus other use and non-use ecosystem service values. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 102.
DOI	10.3389/fmars.2019.00102
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.18710/OP8NGC

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Discrete choice experiment, choice = "Hva foretrekker du?" among the current-regulation status quo (profile 1, fixed levels) and two stricter-regulation scenarios, 8 fixed cards; no opt-out beyond the status quo. Level text is the questionnaire's Norwegian wording mapped from the codebook codes; the questionnaire's example cards differ from the data's cards. 75 tasks without a choice dropped; without-jobs half of a split sample (N = 490; the with-jobs half is aanesen_2018_coastal_recreation).

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	490
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	11,535
Tasks per respondent (most)	8
Profiles per task	3
Attributes	4
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	climate energy environment
A profile represents	policy
Country	NO
Language shown	nb
Language of stored levels	nb
Randomization restrictions	yes (stated by the source): one fixed design of 8 cards for all respondents (data); the status quo has the same levels on every card (both facilities, 50% more waste, 5 kg less catch, tax 0); level counts unequal
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead.

Outcomes:

choice	Hva foretrekker du? [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_catchattr_landscapeattr_taxattr_wastechoicecov_age_groupcov_countycov_educationcov_gendercov_household_incomecov_member_environmentcov_member_recreationcov_personal_incomeidprofiletask

The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):

# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("aanesen_2019_marine_tradeoffs", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("aanesen_2019_marine_tradeoffs", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Aanesen_2019, title={Trading Off Co-produced Marine Ecosystem Services: Natural Resource Industries Versus Other Use and Non-use Ecosystem Service Values}, volume={6}, ISSN={2296-7745}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00102}, DOI={10.3389/fmars.2019.00102}, journal={Frontiers in Marine Science}, publisher={Frontiers Media SA}, author={Aanesen, Margrethe and Armstrong, Claire W.}, year={2019}, month=Mar }

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint v4.2
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/qkye-q530
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v4.2
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0