The discrete choice experiment (DCE) is introduced in sports economics by empirically investigating soccer attendees’ preferences for facilities at a soccer stadium in Denmark. The appropriateness of the strategy of differentiating prices based on quality of opponents (A vs. B matches) is investigated. The results indicate that respondents are capable of understanding the exercise. The DCE is a useful and valid tool in assessing the strength of preferences for stadium facilities. The study found positive preferences for the investigated facilities, except for the use of cheerleaders where the authors observed some heterogeneity.
Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J.J., & Williams, M. ( 1994). Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271-292.
2.
Akter, S., Bennett, J., & Akhter, S. ( 2008). Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation . Ecological Economics, 67, 345-351.
3.
Baade, R., & Dye, R. ( 1988). An analysis of the economic rationale for public subsidization of sports stadiums. Annals of Regional Science , 22, 37-48.
4.
Barget, E., & Gouguet, J. ( 2007). The total economic value of sporting events theory and practice. Journal of Sports Economics, 8, 165-182.
5.
Bateman, I., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., & Hett, T., ... Swanson, J. ( 2002). Economic valuation with stated preferences techniques: A manual. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
6.
Bech, M., & Gyrd-Hansen, D. (2005). Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics, 14, 1079-1083.
7.
Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. ( 1985). Discrete choice analysis. Theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press .
8.
Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. ( 2001). The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing .
9.
Bird, P. ( 1982). The demand for league football. Applied Economics, 14, 637-649.
10.
Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T., & James, S. ( 2001). Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Economics , 28, 479-498.
11.
Carlino, G., & Coulson, N. ( 2004). Compensating differentials and the social benefit of the NFL. Journal of Urban Economics, 56, 25-50.
12.
Carlino, G., & Coulson, N. ( 2006). Compensating differentials and the social benefit of the NFL: Reply. Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 132-138.
13.
Coates, D., Humphreys, B., & Zimbalist, A. ( 2006). Compensating differentials and the social benefit of the NFL: A comment. Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 124-131.
14.
Feehan, P., Forrest, D., & Simmons, R. ( 2003). Premier League Soccer: Normal or inferior good ? European Sport Management Quarterly, 3, 31-45.
15.
Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., & Adamowicz, V. ( 1998). Using choice experiments to value the environment . Environmental and Resource Economics, 11, 413-428.
16.
Harrison, G., & Rustrom, E. ( 2008). Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In C. Plott & V. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results. New York, NY : Elsevier Science.
17.
Hensher, D.A., Barnard, P., Milthorpe, F.W., & Smith, N.C. ( 1989). Urban tolled roads and the valuation of travel time savings . Economic Record, 66, 146-156.
18.
Johnson, B., Groothuis, P., & Whitehead, J. ( 2001). The value of public goods generated by a major league sports team: The CVM approach. Journal of Sports Economics , 2, 6-21.
19.
Johnson, B., Mondello, M., & Whitehead, J. ( 2007). The value of public goods generated by a National Football League team. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 123-136.
20.
Johnson, B., & Whitehead, J. ( 2000). Value of public goods from sports stadiums: The CVM approach . Contemporary Economic Policy, 18, 48-58.
21.
Lancaster, K. ( 1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132-157.
22.
Louviere, J.J., & Woodworth, G. ( 1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350-367.
23.
Manski, C. ( 1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision, 8, 229-254.
24.
McFadden, D. ( 1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour . In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers of econometrics (pp. 105-142). London, England: Academic Press.
25.
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. ( 2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Recent developments . Paris, France: OECD Publishing .
26.
Ryan, M. ( 1999). Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: An application to in vitro fertilisation . Social Science & Medicine, 48, 535-546.
27.
Street, D., & Burgess, L. ( 2007). The construction of optimal stated choice experiments. Theory and methods. New York, NY: John Wiley.
28.
Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. ( 2001). The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: A latent class model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 135-148.
29.
Train, K. ( 2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
30.
Tu, C. ( 2005). How does a new sports stadium affect housing values? The case of FedEx field. Land Economics, 81, 379-395.
31.
Walton, H., Longo, A., & Dawson, P. ( 2008). A contingent valuation of the 2012 London Olympic Games . A regional perspective. Journal of Sports Economics , 9, 304-317.
32.
www.danskebank.dk. (2009, October). Oktober 2007. Middelkurser i København. Average exchange rates Copenhagen. Danske Bank. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from http://www.danskebank.dk/da-dk/Privat/Daglig-oekonomi/Valuta/Documents/Valutaoversigt%202007/Valutaoktober2007.pdf.
33.
www.dst.dk. (2009). Population internet use 2009 (Befolkningens brug af internet 2009). Statistics Denmark. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.dst.dk/nytudg/12287.
34.
Xu, J., & Long, J. ( 2005). Using the delta method to construct confidence intervals for predicted probabilities, rates and discrete change. Working Paper, Indiana University, 1-8.
