9,840 rated or chosen profiles from 139 respondents, in up to 24 tasks of 3 profiles varying on 4 attributes.

About this table

Description	Participants in 7 Irish valuation workshops (2014, n = 139) chose among two cold-water coral protection options and the status quo on 12 cards varying protected area, attractiveness to business, importance as fish habitat and household cost, once before and once after a group discussion.
Reference	Aanesen, M., Armstrong, C., & van Rensburg, T. M. (2021). Do we choose differently after a discussion? Results from a deliberative valuation study in Ireland. Land Economics, 97(1), 207-223.
DOI	10.3368/wple.97.1.100719-0144R
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.18710/XG6CYW

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Discrete choice experiment: 'I prefer' Alternative 1, 2 or 3 (same as today); the status quo is profile 3 with its printed levels, no further opt-out. Each participant answered the 12 cards before and again after a group discussion (tasks 13-24, trial_repeat_of). Two fixed card versions; 40 second-round tasks with an invalid cost code and 16 without exactly one choice dropped.

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

Design

Topic	climate energy environment
A profile represents	policy
Country	IE
Language shown	en
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	yes (stated by the source): fixed design: two versions of 12 cards (A for municipalities 1-2, B as printed in the questionnaire), each card 2 options + a status quo with fixed levels (2.500 km2, some attractiveness to both, some importance, 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	Please consider these carefully and select your preferred alternative (where it says “I prefer”). [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_businessattr_costattr_habitatattr_sizechoicecov_adultscov_agecov_certainty_aftercov_certainty_beforecov_childrencov_educationcov_engocov_gendercov_income_householdcov_income_personalcov_municipalitycov_occupationcov_quiz_scorecov_workidprofiletasktrial_card_versiontrial_repeat_oftrial_roundtrial_score_feedback

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_2021_cold_water_coral", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("aanesen_2021_cold_water_coral", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Aanesen_2021, title={Do We Choose Differently after a Discussion? Results from a Deliberative Valuation Study in Ireland}, volume={97}, ISSN={1543-8325}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/wple.97.1.100719-0144R}, DOI={10.3368/wple.97.1.100719-0144r}, number={1}, journal={Land Economics}, publisher={University of Wisconsin Press}, author={Aanesen, Margrethe and Armstrong, Claire W. and Van Rensburg, Thomas}, year={2021}, month=Feb, pages={207–223} }

Respondents	139
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	9,840
Tasks per respondent (most)	24
Profiles per task	3
Attributes	4
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

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

aanesen_2021_cold_water_coral