Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: Comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 170-185

  Welsh, Michael P ^a   Poe, Gregory L ^b  

^a Stratus Consulting Incorporated   (United States)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGY;

EID: 0031667810     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1998.1043     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. th Interim Report, University of Nevada, Reno (1997).
2. K. Arrow, R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Randner, and H. Schuman, Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, Appendix I, Federal Register 58, 4602-4603 (1993).
3. K. J. Boyle, F. R. Johnson, D. W. McCollum, W. H. Desvousges, R. W. Dunford, and S. P. Hudson, Valuing public goods: Discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses, Land Econom. 72, 381-396 (1996).
4. T. Brown, P. Champ, R. Bishop, and D. McCollum, Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?, Land Econom. 72, 152-166 (1996).
5. T. A. Cameron and D. D. Huppert, OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data, J. Environ. Econom. Management 17, 230-246 (1989).
6. T. A. Cameron and J. Quiggin, Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire, J. Environ. Econom. Management 27, 218-34 (1994).
7. T. A. Cameron, G. L. Poe, R. G. Ethier, and W. D. Schulze, "A Comparison of Alternative CV Elicitation Methods with Actual Contributions," selected AERE paper presented at the ASSA meetings, Chicago (1998).
8. P. A. Champ, R. C. Bishop, T. C. Brown, and D. W. McCollum, Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods," J. Environ. Econom. Management 33, 151-163 (1997).
9. R. C. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schulze (Eds.), "Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method," Rowan & Allanheld, Totowa, NJ (1986).
10. W. Desvousges, F. R. Johnson, R. W. Dunford, K. J. Boyle, S. P. Hudson and K. N. Wilson, "Measuring Nonuse Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy," Research Triangle Institute Monograph 92-1, Exxon Corporation (1992).
11. W. R. DuBourg, M. W. Jones-Lee, and G. Loomes, Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity, J. Risk Uncertainty 9, 115-133 (1994).
12. D. M. Grether and C. R. Plott, Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon, Amer. Econom. Rev. 69, 623-638 (1979).
13. M. Haefele, R. A. Kramer, and T. Holmes, Estimating the total value of forest quality in high-elevation spruce-fir forests, in "The Economic Value of Wilderness," General Technical Report SE-78, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Research Triangle Park, NC (1992).
14. W. M. Hanemann, Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, Amer. J. Agr. Econom. 66, 332-341 (1984).
15. W. M. Hanemann, J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen, Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Amer. J. of Agr. Econom. 72, 1255-1263 (1991).
16. J. P. Hoehn and A. Randall, A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econom. Management 14, 226-247 (1987).
17. T. P. Holmes and R. A. Kramer, An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econom. Management 29, 121-132 (1995).
18. J. Jackson, Structural characteristics of norms, in "Current Studies in Social Psychology" (I. D. Stein and M. Fishbein, Eds.), Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York, 301-309 (1965).
19. B. J. Kanninen, Design of sequential experiments for contingent valuation studies, J. Environm. Econom. Management 25, S-1-11 (1993).
20. B. J. Kanninen, Bias in discrete response contingent valuation, J. Environm. Econom. Management 28, 114-125 (1995).
21. C.-Z. Li and L. Mattson, Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation, J. Environm. Econom. Management 28, 256-269 (1995).
22. D. McFadden, Contingent valuation and social choice, Amer. J. Agr. Econom. 76, 689-708 (1994).
23. J. J. Opaluch and K. Segerson, Rational Roots of 'Irrational' Behavior: New Theories of Economic Decision-Making, Northeastern J. Agr. Resour. Econom. 18, 81-95 (1989).
24. T. Park, J. B. Loomis, and M. Creel, Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies, Land Econom. 67, 64-73 (1991).
25. G. L. Poe, E. K. Severance-Lossin, and M. P. Welsh, Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: A convolutions approach, Amer. J. Agr. Econom. 76, 904-915 (1994).
26. R. C. Ready, J. C. Whitehead, and G. C. Bloomquist, Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent, J. Environm. Econom. Management 29, 181-196 (1995).
27. R. C. Ready, J. C. Buzby, and D. Hu, Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates, Land Econom. 72, 397-411 (1996).
28. D. A. Schkade and J. W. Payne, Where do the numbers come from? How people respond to contingent valuation questions, in "Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment" (J. A. Hausman, Ed.), North Holland, New York, 271-293 (1993).
29. W. Schulze, G. McClelland, D. Waldman, and J. Lazo, Source of bias in contingent valuation, in "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Methods and Research Needs" (D. J. Bjornstad and J. R. Kahn, Eds.), Edmund Elger, Cheltenham, UK (1996).
30. B. Shelby, Encounter norms in backcountry settings: Studies of three rivers, J. Leis. Res. 13, 129-138 (1981).
31. B. Shelby, T. C. Brown, and R. Baumgartner, Effects of streamflows on river trips on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, Rivers 3, 191-201 (1992).
32. P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, Preference reversals: A broader perspective, Amer. Econ. Rev. 73, 596-605 (1983).
33. M. P. Welsh and R. C. Bishop, Multiple bounded discrete choice models, in "Benefits & Costs Transfer in Natural Resource Planning" (John Bergstrom, Ed.), Western Regional Research Publication, W-133, Sixth Interim Report, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, 331-352 (Sept. 1993).
34. M. P. Welsh, R. C. Bishop, R. M. Baumgartner, and M. L. Phillips, "Pilot Test, Non-Use Value Study, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies: Final Report," Report to Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, HBRS Inc., Madison (1994).
35. M. P. Welsh, R. C. Bishop, M. L. Phillips, and R. M. Baumgartner, "GCES Non-Use Value Qualitative Research: Final Report," A report to Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Hagler Bailly Consulting Inc., Madison (1995a).
36. M. P. Welsh, R. C. Bishop, M. L. Phillips, and R. M. Baumgartner, "GCES Non-Use Value Study: Final Report," Report to Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Hagler Bailly Consulting Inc., Madison (1995b).