<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Would you choose your preferred option? Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BLACKWELL PUBLISHING</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9600 GARSINGTON RD, OXFORD OX4 2DQ, OXON, ENGLAND</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">90</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">843-855</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Previous research has shown that results from a choice experiment are statistically different from those obtained from a ranking experiment that is recoded and treated as a choice experiment using only the first rank. By avoiding some of the shortcomings of previous comparisons, we obtain the opposite results using data from the valuation of a cork oak reforestation program in the south of Spain. Structural models and welfare estimations are statistically indistinguishable irrespective of the use of parametric or bootstrapping tests. Further, we employ follow-up questions and subsample analysis to test whether divergences appear when potential effects are isolated.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>