Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments

Ecological Economics

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 115-125

  Shaikh, Sabina L ^a   Sun, Lili ^a   Cornelis van Kooten, G ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Respondent uncertainty; Willingness to accept

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LANDOWNER; RESIDENT POPULATION; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CANADA; EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTH AMERICA; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; SWEDEN;

EID: 33947368174     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.016     Document Type: Article

References (23)

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. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Blomquist G.C., Liljas B., and O'Conor R.M. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal 65 1 (1998) 169-177
3. Cameron T.A. Updating subjective risks in the presence of conflicting information: an application to climate change. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 30 1 (2005) 63-97
4. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., Brown T.C., and McCollum D.W. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 (1997) 151-162
5. Cooper J.C. Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24 1 (1993) 25-40
6. Ekstrand E.R., and Loomis J. Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish. Water Resources Research 34 (1998) 3149-3155
7. Gregory R., Lichtenstein S., and Slovic P. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7 (1993) 177-197 (Oct)
8. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984) 332-341
9. Hanemann W.M., and Kriström B. Preference Uncertainty, Optimal Designs and Spikes. In: Johansson P.-O., Kriström B., and Mäler K.-G. (Eds). Current Issues in Environmental Economics (1995), Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK 58-77
10. Jang J.-S.R., Sun C.-T., and Mizutani E. Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft Computing (1997), Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
11. Johannesson M., Liljas B., and Johansson P. An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Applied Economics 30 (1998) 643-647
12. Li C., and Mattson L. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 256-269
13. Loomis J., and Ekstrand E. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican Spotted Owl. Ecological Economics 27 (1998) 29-41
14. Manski C. Identification Problems in the Social Sciences (1995), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
15. McFadden D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In: Zarambka P. (Ed). Frontiers in Econometrics (1973), Academic Press, New York, NY 105-142
16. Ready R., Whitehead J., and Blomquist G. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (1995) 181-197
17. Ready R.C., Navrud S., and Dubourg W.R. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions?. Land Economics 77 (2001) 315-326 (August)
18. Shaikh, S., L. Sun and G.C. van Kooten, in press. "Does Inclusion of Landowners' Non-Market Values Lower Costs of Creating Carbon Forest Sinks?", Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54(2).
19. Shaw W.D., Riddel M., and Jakus P.M. Valuing Environmental Changes in the Presence of Risk: An Update and Discussion of Some Empirical Issues. In: Folmer H., and Tietenberg T. (Eds). Chapter 7 in The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2005/6 (2005), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
20. van Kooten G.C., Krcmar E., and Bulte E.H. Preference uncertainty in non-market valuation: a fuzzy approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (2001) 487-500 (August)
21. van Kooten G.C., Shaikh S.L., and Suchánek P. Mitigating climate change by planting trees: the transaction costs trap. Land Economics 78 (2002) 559-572 (November)
22. Wang H. Treatment of "don't-know" responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 (1997) 219-232
23. 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