Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same?

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 391-425

  Cameron, Trudy Ann ^a   Poe, Gregory L ^b,c   Ethier, Robert G ^d   Schulze, William D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^d ISO New England   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Multiple bounded; Non market value elicitation; Open ended; Payment card; Referendum contingent valuation; Scale factor; Stated revealed preference; Telephone mail survey; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; MARKET CONDITIONS; METHODOLOGY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 0036828032     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1210     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. W. Adamowicz et al., Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation, Amer. J. Agric. Econom. 80, 64-75 (1998).
2. W. Adamowicz et al., Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, J. Environ. Econom. Management 26, 271-292 (1994), doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1017.
3. W. Adamowicz et al., Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation, J. Environ. Econom. Management 32, 65-84 (1997), doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0957.
4. D. R. Bell et al., Determining where to shop: fixed and variable costs of shopping, J. Marketing Res. 35, 352-369 (1998).
5. M. Ben-Akiva and S. R. Lerman, "Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand," MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1985).
6. M. Ben-Akiva and T. Morikawa, Estimation of travel demand models from multiple data sources, in "Transportation and Traffic Theory" (M. Koshi, Ed.), Elsevier, New York (1990).
7. U. Bockenholt and W. R. Dillon, Some new methods for an old problem: Modeling preference changes and competitive market structures in pretest market data, J. Marketing Res. 34, 130-142 (1997).
8. A. K. Bohara et al., Effects of total cost and group-size information on willingness to pay responses: Open ended vs. dichotomous choice, J. Environ. Econom. Management 35, 142-163 (1998), doi:10.1006/jeem.1998.1022.
9. P. C. Boxall et al., "Valuing Undiscovered Attributes: A Combined Revealed-Stated Preference Analysis of North American Aboriginal Artifacts," Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, University of Nevada, Reno (1998).
10. K. J. Boyle et al., Valuing public goods: Discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses, Land Econom. 72, 381-396 (1996).
11. T. C. Brown et al., Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?, Land Econom. 72, 152-166 (1996).
12. T. A. Cameron, A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression, J. Environ. Econom. Management 15, 355-379 (1988).
13. T. A. Cameron and J. E. Englin, Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods, J. Environ. Econom. Management 33, 296-313 (1997), doi:10.1006/jeem.1997.0995.
14. 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).
15. R. Carson et al., "Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions," Department of Economics, UCSD, La Jolla, CA (2000).
16. R. T. Carson et al., Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods, Land Econom. 72, 80-99 (1996).
17. R. G. Cummings et al., Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?, J. Polit. Econ. 105, 609-621 (1997).
18. J. R. DeShazo and G. D. Fermo, Understanding the effects of choice set complexity on consumer's choice behavior: An application to recreational demand, in "W-133 Annual Meeting" (W. D. Shaw, Ed.), Tucson, AZ (1999).
19. R. Ethier et al., A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green electricity programs, Land Econom. 76, 54-67 (2000).
20. S. M. Goldfeld and R. E. Quandt, GQOPT: General purpose numerical optimization package (1992).
21. S. Gupta et al., Do household scanner data provide representative inferences from brand choices: A comparison with store data, J. Marketing Res. 33, 383-398 (1996).
22. T. C. Haab et al., Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? A comment, J. Polit. Econ. 107, 186-196 (1999).
23. B. Halvorsen and K. Sælensminde, Differences between willingness-to-pay estimates from open-ended and discrete-choice contingent valuation methods: The effects of heteroscedasticity, Land Econom. 74, 262-282 (1998).
24. W. M. Hanemann, Theory versus data in the contingent valuation debate, in "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs" (D. J. Bjornstad and J. R. Kahn, Eds.), Elgar, Brookfield, MA (1996).
25. G. W. Harrison, Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions, Amer. Econom. Rev. 79, 749-762 (1989).
26. D. Hensher et al., Combining sources of preference data, J. Econometrics 89, 197-221 (1999).
27. J. Hoehn and A. Randall, A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econom. Management 14, 226-247 (1987).
28. 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), doi:10.1006/jeem.1995.1035.
29. J. Horowitz, Sampling, specification and data errors in probabilistic discrete-choice models, in "Applied Discrete-Choice Modeling" (D. A. Hensher and L. W. Johnson, Eds.), Wiley, New York (1981).
30. J. Horowitz, Sources of error and uncertainty in behavioral travel demand models, in "New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research" (P. Stopher, A. Meyburg, and W. Brog, Eds.), Lexington, Lexington, MA (1980).
31. J. C. Huang and V. K. Smith, Monte Carlo benchmarks for discrete response valuation methods, Land Econom. 74, 186-202 (1998).
32. F. R. Johnson and W. H. Desvousges, Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: Environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs, J. Environ. Econom. Management 34, 79-99 (1997), doi:10.1006/jeem.1997.1002.
33. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, Choices, values, and frames, Amer. Psychologist 39, 341-350 (1984).
34. R. A. Kramer and D. E. Mercer, Valuing a global environmental good: US residents' willingness to pay to protect tropical rain forests, Land Econom. 73, 196-210 (1997).
35. B. Kristrom, Spike models in contingent valuation, Amer. J. Agric. Econom. 79, 1013-1023 (1997).
36. J. J. Louviere et al., Combining sources of preference data for modeling complex decision processes, Marketing Lett. 10, 205-217 (1999).
37. G. Poe et al., "Can Hypothetical Questions Predict Actual Participation in Public Programs? A Field Validity Test Using a Provision Point Mechanism," Cornell University (1997).
38. R. C. Ready et al., Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates, Land Econom. 72, 397-411 (1996).
39. R. C. Ready et al., Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent, J. Environ. Econom. Management 29, 181-196 (1995), doi:10.1006/jeem.1995.1040.
40. D. Rondeau et al., Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism, J. Public Econom. 72, 455-470 (1999).
41. S. K. Rose et al., "The Private Provision of Public Goods: Tests of a Provision Point Mechanism for Funding Green Power Programs," Cornell University (1997).
42. W. Schulze et al., Sources of bias in contingent valuation, in "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs" (D. J. Bjornstad and J. R. Kahn, Eds.), Elgar, Cheltenham, UK (1996).
43. V. L. Smith and J. M. Walker, Monetary rewards and decision cost in experimental economics, Econom. Inquiry 31, 245-261 (1993).
44. V. L. Smith and J. M. Walker, Rewards, experience and decision costs in first price auctions, Econom. Inquiry 31, 237-245 (1993).
45. Stata, "Stata Graphics Manual," Stata Press, College Station, TX (1999).
46. T. Stevens et al., Conjoint analysis of groundwater protection programs, Agric. Resour. Econom. Rev. 26, 229-236 (1997).
47. J. Swait and J. Louviere, The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models, J. Marketing Res. 30, 305-314 (1993).
48. A. Tversky et al., Contingent weighting in judgment and choice, Psych. Rev. 95, 371-384 (1988).
49. M. P. Welsh and G. L. Poe, Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach, J. Environ. Econom. Management 36, 170-185 (1998), doi:10.1006/jeem.1998.1043.