5,724 rated or chosen profiles from 159 respondents, in up to 18 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 3 attributes.
| Description | Context-dependent choice experiment on vacation destinations: 159 online respondents (Nov 2020; 79 choosing for themselves, 80 for a family member) chose between two hypothetical vacations described by destination (own preference rank), travel cost and travel time, given the rank of the destination others chose; 18 sets each. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Molin, E., Quesada, J., Yoo, S., & van Wee, B. (2026). Is vacation destination a positional good? European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 26(3). |
| DOI | 10.59490/ejtir.2026.26.3.8137 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.4121/81910815-0b19-4304-872d-6c31255c8e61 |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 159 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 5,724 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 18 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 3 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | consumer products |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | place |
| Country | NL |
| Language shown | unknown |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | observed in the data (not documented by the source): travel time levels depend on the destination rank: rank 5 destinations 2/3/4 hours, rank 3 6/9/12, rank 1 6/9/10/12/15/20 (observed in the data) |
| 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 | Choose between two hypothetical vacation alternatives described by destination, travel cost and travel time, given the destination choices of relevant others (for yourself, or for a family member) (paraphrase) [choice, forced] |
|---|
attr_destination_rankattr_travel_costattr_travel_timechoicecov_agecov_gendercov_incomeidprofiletasktrial_choosing_fortrial_others_destination_rank
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("molin_2026_vacation_positional", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("molin_2026_vacation_positional", source="conj")
@article{Molin2026,
author = {Molin, E. and Quesada, J. and Yoo, S. and van Wee, B.},
year = {2026},
title = {Is vacation destination a positional good?},
journal = {European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research},
volume = {26},
number = {3},
doi = {10.4121/81910815-0b19-4304-872d-6c31255c8e61}
}
| 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 |