Name: karlosheva_2016_offshore_wind_mpa
Creator: Item Response Warehouse
Published: 2026-10-16
License: CC BY-NC 3.0
Keywords: conjoint experiment

28,800 rated or chosen profiles from 800 respondents, in up to 12 tasks of 3 profiles varying on 3 attributes.

About this table

Description	Choice experiment: 800 Estonian respondents chose in 12 choice sets between the status quo and two alternatives that put nothing, a marine protected area, a wind farm or an 'eco' wind farm on each of two shoals (Apollo Shoal, Western Shoals), at an annual cost.
Reference	Karlõševa, A., Nõmmann, S., Nõmmann, T., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Budziński, W., Czajkowski, M., & Hanley, N. (2016). Marine trade-offs: Comparing the benefits of off-shore wind farms and marine protected areas. Energy Economics, 55, 127-134.
DOI	10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.022
Licence	CC BY-NC 3.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.17632/j4zwwz8gh7.1

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint_2). Choice among the status quo and two alternatives in each of 12 sets; each alternative sets Apollo Shoal and Western Shoals to no change, a marine protected area, a wind farm or an 'eco' wind farm and has an annual cost (EUR 2/5/10/20; status quo EUR 0). The status quo is a profile (all 'No change', cost 0); no opt-out. The deposit stores codes: level text comes from the authors' script plot titles, 'No change' for code 0 and the EUR per year unit are inferred (questionnaire not available). Design version differs by respondent (trial_design_version).

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	800
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	28,800
Tasks per respondent (most)	12
Profiles per task	3
Attributes	3
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	climate energy environment
A profile represents	policy
Country	EE
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice	Choice among the status quo and two alternative plans for the Apollo Shoal and the Western Shoals (paraphrase; questionnaire not available) [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_apollo_shoalattr_costattr_western_shoalschoicecov_birth_yearcov_gender_codeidprofiletasktrial_design_version

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

Licence: CC BY-NC 3.0 — non-commercial use only.

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("karlosheva_2016_offshore_wind_mpa", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("karlosheva_2016_offshore_wind_mpa", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Karl_eva_2016, title={Marine trade-offs: Comparing the benefits of off-shore wind farms and marine protected areas}, volume={55}, ISSN={0140-9883}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.022}, DOI={10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.022}, journal={Energy Economics}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Karlõševa, Aljona and Nõmmann, Sulev and Nõmmann, Tea and Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin and Budziński, Wiktor and Czajkowski, Mikołaj and Hanley, Nick}, year={2016}, month=Mar, pages={127–134} }

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint_2 v1.4
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/hk97-wv30
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v1.4
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0