A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation

Ecological Economics

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 507-519

  Samnaliev, Mihail ^a   Stevens, Thomas H ^b   More, Thomas ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^c U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

Author keywords

Certainty calibration; Contingent valuation; CVM; WTP

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; PUBLIC SPACE; VARIANCE ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 33646146169     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.017     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Alberini A., Boyle K., and Welsh M. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45 (2003) 40-62
2. Blamey R., Bennett J., and Morrison M. Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 75 1 (1999) 126-141
3. Brown T., Champ P., Bishop R., and McCollum D. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?. Land Economics 72 2 (1996) 152-166
4. Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., Krosnick, J.A., Mitchell, R.C., Ruud, P.A., Smith, V.K., 1994. "Prospective Interim Lost Use 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.
5. Champ P., Bishop R., Brown T., and McCollum D. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 2 (1997) 151-163
6. Champ, P., Alberini, A., Correas, I., 2003. "Using Contingent Valuation to Value a Noxious Weeds Control Program: The Effects of Including an "Unsure" Response Category." Working paper.
7. Cooper J.C. A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measures from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 70 1 (1994) 111-122 (February)
8. Dillman D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2001), John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York
9. Duffeld J.W., and Patterson D.A. Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics 67 2 (1991) 225-239
10. Ekstrand, E.R., Loomis, J., 1997. Estimating Willingness to Pay for Protecting Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Fish With Respondent Uncertainty. Unpublished manuscript.
11. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 3 (1984) 332-341
12. Hanley N., Shogren J.F., and White B. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice (1997), Oxford University Press, Oxford
13. Harrison, G.W., Rustrom, E.E., in press. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In: Plott, C., Smith, V.L., (Eds.), Handbook of Results in Experimental Economics. Elsevier Science, New York.
14. Holmes T., and 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
15. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 114-125
16. Krinsky I., and Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (1986) 715-719 (November)
17. Li C., and Mattsson. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 256-269
18. List J.A., and Graig A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 20 (2001) 241-254
19. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Proposed rules for valuing environmental damages. Federal Register 59 (1994) 1062-1091 (January)
20. Park T., Loomis J.B., and Creel M. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Economics 67 1 (1991) 64-73 (February)
21. Polasky, S., Gainutdinova,O., Kerkvliet, J., 1996. Comparing CV responses with voting behavior: open space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon. In: Herriges, J. (Compiler). W-133 Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resources Planning. 9th Interim Report. Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
22. Ready, R., Navrud, S., 1999. "How Do Respondents With Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?" Manuscript, Agricultural University of Norway.
23. Schwarz N., and Sudman S. Answering Questions. Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research (1996), Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco
24. Wang H. Treatment of don't know responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 2 (1997) 219-232
25. Welsh, M., Bishop, R., 1993. "Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Models." In W-133 Benefits and Costs Transfers in Natural Resources Planning. 6th Interim Report. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia.
26. Welsh M.P., and Poe G.L. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 (1998) 170-185