Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs

Ecological Economics

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 255-270

  Powe, N A ^a   Bateman, I J ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Nested goods; Question order effect; Split sample

Indexed keywords

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

EID: 0038270417     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00084-3     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Andreoni, J., 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods. Economic Journal 100, 464-477.
2. Arrow, K.J., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, January 11.
3. Baron, J., Greene, J., 1996. Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: contribution, warm glow and budget constraints, availability and prominence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2 (2), 107-125.
4. Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G., 1999. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, New. York.
5. Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Turner, R.K., Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., 1995. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics 12, 161-179.
6. Bateman, I., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C., Sugden, R., 1997. A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (2), 479-505.
7. Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Munro, A., Stamer, C., Sugden, R., 2000. Estimating the four Hicksian measures for a public good: a contingent valuation investigation. Land Economics 76 (3), 355-373.
8. Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Jones, A.P., Kerr, G.N., 2001a. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 23, 191-213.
9. Bateman, I.J., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Poe, G.L., 2001b. Visible choice sets and scope sensitivity: an experimental and field test of study design effects upon contingent values, CSERGE Working Paper EDM 01-01, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, (Also available at http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/publications/wp/edm/edm01.htm#01).
10. Boyle, K.J, Reiling, S.D., Phillips, M.L., 1990. Species substitution and question sequencing in contingent valuation surveys evaluating the hunting of several types of wildlife. Leisure Sciences 12, 103-118.
11. Boyle, K.J., Welsh, M.P., Bishop, R.C., 1993. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25, S80-S99.
12. Boyle, K.J., Desvousges, W.H., Johnson, F.R., Dunford, R.W., Hudson, S.P., 1994. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27, 64-83.
13. Brown, Thomas, G., Susan, C., Barro, Michael, J., Manfredo, George, Peterson, 1995. Does better information about the good avoid the embedding effect? Journal of Environmental Management 44, 1-10.
14. Carson, R.T., 1997. Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Kopp, R.J., Pommerehne, W.W., Schwarz, N. (Eds.), Determining the Value of Non-market Goods: Economic, Psychological and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
15. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.M., 1993a. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimable quality water. Water Resources Research 29, 2445-2454.
16. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.M., 1993b. The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 1263-1267.
17. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.M., 1995. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 155-173.
18. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Hanemann, W.M., 1998. Sequencing and valuing public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3, 314-323.
19. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., Machina, M.J., 1999. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions, Plenary Address, Ninth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), Oslo, Norway, June.
20. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Meade, N.F., 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19, 173-210.
21. Cooper, J.C., 1994. A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measures from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 70 (1), 111-122.
22. Cubitt, R.P., Sugden, R., 2001. On money pumps. Games and Economic Behaviour 37, 121-160.
23. Diamond, P.A., Hausman, J.A., 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4), 45-64.
24. Duffield, J.W., Patterson, D.A., 1991. Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics 67 (2), 225-239.
25. Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J., 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York.
26. Green, D., Jacowitz, K.E., Kahneman, D., McFadden, D., 1998. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20, 85-116.
27. Haab, T.C., McConnell, 1998. Referendum models and economics values: theoretical intuitive, and practical bounds on willingness to pay. Land Economics 74 (2), 216-229.
28. Hammitt, J.K., Graham, J.D., 1999. Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8 (1), 33-62.
29. Hanemann, W.M., 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4), 19-43.
30. Hanemann, W.M., Kanninen, B., 1999. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
31. Hanemann, W.M., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B., 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (4), 1255-1263.
32. Harrison, G.W., 1992. Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: a critique of Kahneman and Knetsch. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23, 248-257.
33. Hicks, J.R., 1943. The four consumer's surpluses. Review of Economics Studies 11, 31-41.
34. Hicks, J.R., 1956. A Revision of Demand Theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England.
35. Hoehn, J.P., 1983. The benefits-costs evaluation of multi-part public policy: a theoretical framework and critique of estimation methods, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Kentucky.
36. Hoehn, J.P., 1991. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (2), 289-299.
37. Hoehn, J.P., Randall, A., 1982. Aggregation and disaggregation of program benefits in a complex policy environment: a theoretical framework and critique of estimation methods, paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Logan, Utah.
38. Hoehn, J.P., Loomis, J.B., 1993. Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25, 56-75.
39. Hoevenagel, R., 1996. The validity of the contingent valuation method: perfect and regular embedding. Environmental and Resource Economics 7, 57-78.
40. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 55-70.
41. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, New York 1982.
42. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., Schkade, D., 1999. Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: an analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19 (1-3), 203-235.
43. Kemp, M.A., Maxwell, C., 1993. Exploring a budget context for contingent valuation estimates. In: Hausman, J.A. (Ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. North Holland, Amsterdam.
44. Loomis, J., Lockwood, M., DeLacy, T., 1993. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24, 45-55.
45. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
46. Moore, D.W., 2002. Measuring new types of question-order effects. Public Opinion Quarterly 66, 80-91.
47. Randall, A., Hoehn, J.P., 1996. Embedding in market demand systems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 369-380.
48. Randall, A., Hoehn, J.P., Tolley, G.S., 1981. The structure of contingent markets: some empirical results, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, Washington D.C.
49. Ready, R.C., Hu, D., 1995. Statistical approaches to the fat tail problem for dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics 71 (4), 491-499.
50. Ready, R.C., Buzby, J.C., Hu, D., 1996. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics 72 (3), 397-411.
51. Scarpa, R., Bateman, I.J., 2000. Efficiency gains afforded by improved bid design versus follow-up valuation questions in discrete-choice CV studies. Land Economics 76 (2), 299-311.
52. Schkade, D.A., Payne, J.W., 1994. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 88-109.
53. Schulze, W.D., McClelland, G.H., Lazo, J.K., Rowe, R.D., 1998. Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values. Resource and Energy Economics 20 (2), 163-178.
54. Schuman, H., Presser, S., 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording and Context. Academic Press, New York.
55. Smith, V.K., 1992. Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts: comment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 71-89.
56. Smith, V.K., Osbourne, L.L., 1996. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a 'scope' test? A meta analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 287-301.
57. Sprent, P., 1998. Data Driven Statistical Methods, Texts in Statistical Science. Chapman and Hall, London.
58. Sugden, R., 1999. Alternatives to the Neo-classical theory of choice. In: Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, pp. 152-180.
59. Tolley, G.S., Randall, A., Blomquist, G., Fabian, R., Fishelson, G., Frankel, A., Hoehn, J., Krumm, R., Mensah, E., 1983. Establishing and valuing the effects of improved visibility in the Eastern United States, interim report to the US Environmental Protection Agency.
60. Turner, R.K., Brooke, J., 1988. Management and valuation of an environmentally sensitive area: Norfolk Broadland, England, case study. Environmental Management 12 (2), 193-207.