Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 183-194

  Flachaire, Emmanuel ^a   Hollard, Guillaume ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 1 PANTHÉON SORBONNE   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ GUSTAVE EIFFEL   (France)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Preference uncertainty; Starting point bias

Indexed keywords

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; PREFERENCE UNCERTAINTY; STARTING POINT BIAS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECONOMICS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; MODEL; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 34548163133     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2007.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (24)

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. Alberini A., Kanninen B., and Carson R. Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice valuation data. Land Economics 73 3 (1997) 309-324
3. Ariely D., Loewenstein G., and Prelec D. Arbitrarily coherent preferences. In: Brocas I., and Carrillo J.D. (Eds). The Psychology of Economic Decision (2003), Oxford University Press
4. Ariely D., Loewenstein G., and Prelec D. Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118-1 (2003) 73-105
5. Cameron T., and Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1994) 218-234
6. Carson R., Mitchell R., Hanemann M., Kopp R., Presser S., and Ruud P. Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental and Resource Economics 25 (2003) 257-286
7. Chapman G.B., and Johnson E.J. Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79 2 (1999) 115-153
8. Cooper J., Haneman W.M., and Signorelli G. One and one-half bids for contingent valuation. Review of Economics and Statistics 84 (2002) 742-750
9. DeShazo J.R. Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (2002) 360-385
10. Flachaire E., and Hollard G. Controlling starting-point bias in double-bounded contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 82 (2006) 103-111
11. Flachaire, E., Hollard, G. Individual sensitivity to framing effects in surveys. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, in press.
12. Green D., Kacowitz K.E., Kahneman D., and McFadden D. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20 (1998) 85-116
13. Hanemann M., and Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete response CV data. In: Bateman I., and Willis K. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries (1999), Oxford University Press, New York 302-441 (Chapter 11)
14. Hanemann W., Loomis J., and Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (1991) 1255-1263
15. Hanley, N., Kristrom, B., 2002. What's it worth? Exploring value uncertainty using interval questions in contingent valuation. Working paper, 2002-10, University of Glasgow.
16. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 112-131
17. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 114-125
18. Li C.Z., and Mattsson L. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 256-269
19. 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
20. Ready R.C., Whitehead J.C., and Blomquist G. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (1995) 181-196
21. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974) 124-131
22. van Kooten G.C., Krcmar E., and Bulte E.H. Preference uncertainty in non-market valuation: a fuzzy approach. American Journal of Agricultural Econmics 83 (2001) 487-500
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
24. Whitehead J.C. Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Economics 78 (2002) 285-297