Externally validating contingent valuation: An open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 261-277

  Vossler, Christian A ^a   Kerkvliet, Joe ^b   Polasky, Stephen ^c   Gainutdinova, Olesya ^d  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^d INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; External validation; Referendum; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037410476     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00097-5     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Arrow K.Solow R.Portney P.Leamer E.Radner R.Schuman H.Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation Federal Register 58 1993 4601-4614
2. Berrens R.Bohara A.Kerkvliet J.A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 1997 252-266
3. Bishop R.C.Heberlein T.A.Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect methods biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 1979 926-930
4. Bishop R.C.Heberlein T.A.Kealy M.J.Contingent valuation of environmental assets: comparison with a simulated market Natural Resources Journal 23 1983 619-634
5. Bohara A.McKee M.Berrens R.Jenkins-Smith H.Silva C.Brookshire D.Effects of total cost and group-size information on willingness to pay responses: open ended vs. dichotomous choice Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35 1998 142-163
6. Boyle K.MacDonald H.Cheng H.McCollum D.Bid design and yea-saying in single-bounded dichotomous choice questions Land Economics 74 1998 49-64
7. Brookshire D.Coursey D.Measuring the value of a public good: an empirical comparison of elicitation procedures American Economic Review 77 1987 554-556
8. Cameron T.A.A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15 1988 355-379
9. Cameron, T.A., Poe, G.L., Ethier, R.G., Schulze, W.D., 2002. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are underlying preferences the same?, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, in press.
10. Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Mitchell, R.C., 1986. The use of simulated political markets to value public goods. Economics Department, University of California, San Diego.
11. Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., Krosnick, J.A., Mitchell, R.C., Presser, S., Raud, P., Smith, V.K., 1994. Prospective interim lost use value due to ddt and pcb contamination in the southern California bight. A Report of Natural Resource Damage Assessment Inc. and Industrial Economics Inc. to US NOAA.
12. Carson R.T.Hanemann W.M.Kopp R.J.Krosnick J.A.Mitchell R.C.Presser S.Ruud P.A.Smith V.K.Conaway M.Martin K.Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA panel's no-vote recommendation Review of Economics and Statistics 80 1998 335-338
13. Champ, P.A., Brown, T.C., 1997. A comparison of contingent and actual voting behavior. In: Proceedings from W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, 10th Interim Report, pp. 77-98.
14. Cummings R.G.Harrison G.W.Rutström E.E.Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? American Economic Review 85 1995 260-266
15. Cummings R.G.Elliot S.Harrison G.W.Murphy J.Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? Journal of Political Economy 105 1997 609-621
16. Diamond P.A.Hausman J.A.Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number Journal of Economic Perspectives 84 1994 45-64
17. Dickie M.Fisher A.Gerking S.Market transactions and hypothetical demand data: a comparative study Journal of the American Statistical Association 82 1987 69-75
18. Duffield, J.W., Patterson, D.A., 1992. Field testing existence values: comparison of hypothetical and cash transaction values. In: Proceedings from W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, 5th Interim Report, pp. 1-37.
19. Foster V.Bateman I.J.Harley D.Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison Journal of Agricultural Economics 48 1997 123-138
20. Greenlees J.S.Reece W.S.Zieschang K.D.Imputation of missing values when the probability of response depends on the variable being imputed Journal of the American Statistical Association 77 1982 251-261
21. Hanemann W.M.Valuing the environment through contingent valuation Journal of Economic Perspectives 84 1994 19-43
22. Hill-Donnelly Corporation, 1995. Hill-Donnelly cross reference directory for Albany-Corvallis, Oregon. Hill-Donnelly Corporation, Tampa, FL.
23. Holmes T.Kramer R.An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 1995 121-132
24. Kanninen B.J.Bias in discrete response contingent valuation Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 1995 114-125
25. Kealy M.J.Dovidio J.F.Rockel M.L.Accuracy in valuation is a matter of degree Land Economics 64 1988 158-171
26. Kealy M.J.Montgomery M.Dovidio J.F.Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: does the nature of the good matter? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19 1990 244-263
27. Kmenta, J., 1986. Elements of econometrics, 2nd Edition. Macmillan, New York.
28. Krinsky I.Robb A.L.On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities Review of Economics and Statistics 68 1986 715-719
29. List J.Shogren J.Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37 1998 193-206
30. Magelby, D., 1989. Opinion formation and opinion change in ballot proposition campaigns. In: Margolis, M., Mauser, G. (Eds.), Manipulating Public Opinion. Brooks/Cole Publishers, Pacific Grove, CA, pp. 95-115.
31. Neill H.R.Cummings R.G.Ganderton P.T.Harrison G.W.McGuckin T.Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments Land Economics 70 1994 145-154
32. Polk Multi-Dimensional Intelligence, 1995. Polk city directory. Linn-Benton counties, OR, Polk Multi-Dimensional Intelligence, Livonia, MI.
33. Ready R.C.Buzby J.C.Hu D.Differences between continuous and discrete contingent valuation estimates Land Economics 72 1996 387-411
34. Rubin, D.B., 1978. Multiple imputations in sample surveys: a phenomenological Bayesian approach to non-response. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 20-28.
35. Rubin D.B.Stern H.S.Vehovar V.Handling do not know survey responses: the case of the Slovenian plebiscite Journal of the American Statistical Association 90 1995 822-828
36. Seip K.Strand J.Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: a contingent valuation study with real payment Environmental and Resource Economics 2 1992 91-106
37. Shabman L.Stephenson K.Searching for the correct benefit estimate: empirical evidence for an alternative perspective Land Economics 72 1996 433-449
38. Wang H.Treatment of do not-know responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 1997 219-232