11,700 rated or chosen profiles from 325 respondents, in up to 12 tasks of 3 profiles varying on 6 attributes.

About this table

Description	Two pooled choice experiments with 325 farmers in Thailand (198 longan farmers in Chiang Mai, 127 rambutan farmers in Chanthaburi) choosing among Policy A, Policy B and a no-conservation status quo that differ in bee-friendly pest control, habitat improvement, native bee husbandry, change in native bee population and a one-time cost. 12 sets each, choice.
Reference	Narjes, M. E., & Lippert, C. (2021). Regional differences in farmers' preferences for a native bee conservation policy: The case of farming communities in Northern and Eastern Thailand. PLOS ONE, 16(5), e0251206.
DOI	10.1371/journal.pone.0251206
Licence	CC BY 4.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.17632/tyjry2n2hb

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint_2). Choice among Policy A, Policy B and a fixed status quo (no conservation strategy, native bees -50%, cost 0), described by bee-friendly pest control, habitat improvement, native bee husbandry, native bee population change and a one-time cost in THB; 12 sets, one chosen each, no opt-out (the status quo has levels). Two fieldings (Chiang Mai longan farmers, Chanthaburi rambutan farmers) with the same design are pooled with cov_region; N 198 + 127 = 325 as in the paper. Level text is a paraphrase of the article's Table 1.

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	TH
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	inferred from row order

Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.

Outcomes:

choice	In each of twelve choice occasions the respondent chose one of three alternative scenarios (Policy A, Policy B or the status quo) (paraphrase) [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_alternativeattr_bee_friendly_pest_controlattr_implementation_costattr_native_bee_habitat_improvementattr_native_bee_husbandryattr_native_bee_population_changechoicecov_agecov_beekeepercov_childrencov_econ_bee_activitycov_education_codecov_ethnic_group_codecov_gendercov_keeps_bees_on_farmcov_occupation_codecov_pollination_shortage_experiencedcov_rates_native_bees_goodcov_regionidprofiletask

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("narjes_2021_native_bee_policy", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("narjes_2021_native_bee_policy", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Narjes_2021, title={Regional differences in farmers’ preferences for a native bee conservation policy: The case of farming communities in Northern and Eastern Thailand}, volume={16}, ISSN={1932-6203}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251206}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0251206}, number={5}, journal={PLOS ONE}, publisher={Public Library of Science (PLoS)}, author={Narjes, Manuel Ernesto and Lippert, Christian}, editor={Yue, Bi-Song}, year={2021}, month=May, pages={e0251206} }

Respondents	325
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	11,700
Tasks per respondent (most)	12
Profiles per task	3
Attributes	6
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

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

narjes_2021_native_bee_policy