12,992 rated or chosen profiles from 1,624 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 7 attributes.
One of 3 tables from the same source; this one is the us table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | US online-survey respondents (Feb-Mar 2018) compared 4 pairs of meat-and-fish policy packages varying a meat tax, use of its revenues, vegetarian-meal rules for public cafeterias, discounts for vegetarian alternatives, animal farming standards, information campaigns and producer subsidies; forced choice plus a 1-7 support rating per package. 1,624 respondents. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Fesenfeld, L. P., Wicki, M., Sun, Y., & Bernauer, T. (2020). Policy packaging can make food system transformation feasible. Nature Food, 1(3), 173-182. |
| DOI | 10.1038/s43016-020-0047-4 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/FR73RE |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 1,624 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 12,992 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 4 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 7 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | climate energy environment |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): Use of tax revenues = 'No tax revenues' if and only if the meat tax is 'No new tax' (instrument Q10 programming notes; checked in the data). Other values 'randomly displayed per attribute' in each task. |
| 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 | Which policy package do you prefer? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | How much do you personally support policy package A? / How much do you personally support policy package B? [rating, 1 (Strongly oppose) to 7 (Strongly support)] |
attr_cafeteria_rulesattr_campaignsattr_farming_standardsattr_meat_taxattr_producer_subsidiesattr_revenue_useattr_vegetarian_discountschoicecov_agecov_age_groupcov_duration_mincov_edu_groupcov_food_habitscov_gendercov_government_rolecov_income_groupcov_left_rightcov_party_idcov_week_mealscov_week_meat_mealsidprofileratingtasktrial_info_treatment
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.
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("fesenfeld_2020_food_policy_us", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("fesenfeld_2020_food_policy_us", source="conj")
@article{Fesenfeld_2020, title={Policy packaging can make food system transformation feasible}, volume={1}, ISSN={2662-1355}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0047-4}, DOI={10.1038/s43016-020-0047-4}, number={3}, journal={Nature Food}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Fesenfeld, Lukas Paul and Wicki, Michael and Sun, Yixian and Bernauer, Thomas}, year={2020}, month=Mar, pages={173–182} }
| 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 |