Improved estimation of willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies

Land Economics

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 65-75

  Langford, Lau H ^a   Bateman, Lan J ^b   Jones, Andrew P ^c   Langford, Hugh D ^a   Georgiou, Stavros ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d Dewsbury College   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; THEORY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 0031658571     PISSN: 00237639     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3147213     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abdelbasit, K. M., and R. L. Plackett. 1983. Experimental Designs for Binary Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 78:9098.
2. Alberini, A., B. Kanninen, and R. T. Carson. 1994. Random-Effect Models of Willingness to Pay Using Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Survey Response Data. Discussion Paper 94-33, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
3. Arrow, K. J., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Learner, R. Radner, and E. H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58 (10):460214.
4. Bateman, I. J., E. Diamand, I. H. Langford, and A. P. Jones. 1996. Household Willingness to Pay and Farmers' Willingness to Accept Compensation for Establishing a Recreational Woodland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39 (l):21-43.
5. Bateman, I. J., I. H. Langford, and J. Rasbash. Forthcoming. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies. In Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences: Assessing Theory and Practice in the USA, Europe, and Developing Countries, ed. I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
6. Bateman, I. J., I. H. Langford, R. K. Turner, K. G. Willis, and G. D. Garrod. 1995. Elicitation and Truncation Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies. Ecological Economics 12 (2): 161-79.
7. Breslow, N. E., and D. G. Clayton. 1993. Approximate Inference in Generalised Linear Mixed Models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88:9-25.
8. Cooper, J. C. 1994. A Comparison of Approaches to Calculating Confidence Intervals for Benefit Measures from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys. Land Economics 70 (Feb.):l 11-22.
9. Duffield, J. W., and D. A. Patterson. 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Land Economics 67 (May):225-39. .
10. Efron, B., and R. J. Tibshirani. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. London: Chapman and Hall.
11. Goldstein, H. 1995. Multilevel Statistical Models. London: Edward Arnold.
12. 1996. Likelihood Computations for Discrete Response Multilevel Models. Multilevel Models Project, Working Paper, Institute of Education, London.
13. Goldstein, H., and J. Rasbash. 1992. Efficient Computational Procedures for the Estimation of Parameters in Multilevel Models Based on Iterative Generalised Least Squares. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 13:6371.
14. 1996. "Improved Approximations for Multilevel Models with Binary Responses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 159 (3):505-14.
15. Hanemann, W. M. 1984. Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (3):332-41.
16. Hanemann, W. M., J. B. Loomis, and B. Kanninen. 1991. Statistical Efficiency of DoubleBounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (4): 1255-63.
17. Kerr, G. N. 1996. Probability Distributions for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 96-08, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College London.
18. Kriström, B. 1993. Comparing Continuous and Discrete Valuation Questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 3:63-71.
19. Kuk, A. Y. C. 1995. Asymptotically Unbiased Estimation in Generalized Linear Models with Random Effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 57 (2):395-408.
20. Langford, I. H. 1994. Using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model to Analyze Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data. Land Economics 70 (Nov.):507-14.
21. 1995. "A Multi-Level Log-Linear Model of Childhood Leukaemia Mortality. Journal of Health and Place 1 (2): 113-20.
22. Langford, I. H., and I. J. Bateman. 1995. Multilevel Modelling and Contingent Valuation Part Two: Modelling Individual and Group Effects in a Dichotomous Choice Survey. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 95-05, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College London.
23. Forthcoming. "Multilevel Modelling and Contingent Valuation. In Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences: Assessing Theory and Practice in the USA, Europe, and Developing Countries, ed. I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
24. Langford, I. H., I. J. Bateman, and H. D. Langford. 1996. A Multilevel Modelling Approach to Triple-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 7 (3): 197-211.
25. Langford, I. H., G. Bentham, and A-L. McDonald. 1998. Multi-level Modelling of Geographically Aggregated Health Data: A Case Study of Malignant Melanoma Mortality and UV Exposure in the European Community. Sîatistics in Medicine 17 (l):41-57.
26. Longford, N. T. 1993. Random Coefficient Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. McCulIagh, P., and J. A. Neider. 1989. Generalised Linear Models. London: Chapman and Hall.
28. Mok, M. 1995. Sample Size Requirements for 2-Level Designs in Educational Research. Multilevel Modelling Newsletter 1 (2): 11-16.
29. Park, T., J. B. Loomis, and M. Creel. 1991. Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies. Land Economics 67 (Feb.):65-73.
30. Wolfmger, R. 1993. Laplace's Approximation for Nonlinear Mixed Models. Biometrika 80: 701-95.