Model selection in iterative valuation questions

Revue d'Economie Politique

Volumn 117, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 853-865

  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

EID: 38349137065     PISSN: 03732630     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3917/redp.175.0853     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. AADLAND, D. and A. J. CAPLAN [2004]. "Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions: comment". Land Economics 80(2), 312-315.
2. ALBERINI, A., K. BOYLE, and M. WELSH [2003]. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45, 40-62.
3. ALBERINI, A., B. KANNINEN, and R. CARSON [1997]. "Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice valuation data". Land Economics 73(3), 309-324.
4. ARIELY, D., G. LOEWENSTEIN, and D. PRELEC [2003]. "Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences", Quarterly Journal of Economics 118-1, 73-105.
5. ARROW, K., R. SOLOW, P. R. PORTNEY, E. E. LEARNER, R. RADNER, and H. SCHUMAN [1993, January]. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Technical Report 58(10), p. 1601-1614.
6. CLAEYS-MEKDADE, C., G. GENIAUX, and S. LUCHINI [1999]. Quelle valeur attribuer à la Camargue? Une perspective interdisciplinaire économie et sociologie. In P. Point (Ed.), La valeur économique des hydrosystèmes. Méthodes et modèles d'évaluation des services délivrés, Chapter 7, pp. 137-168. Paris: Economica.
7. COOPER, J., W. M. HANEMAN, and G. SIGNORELLI [2002]. "One and one-half bids for contingent valuation". Review of Economics and Statistics 84, 742-750.
8. CROOKER, J. R. and J. A. HERRIGES [2004]. "Parametric and semi-nonparametric estimation of willingness-to-pay in the dichotomous choice contingent valuation framework". Environmental and Resource Economics 27, 451-480.
9. DESHAZO, J. R. [2002]. "Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43, p. 360-385.
10. FLACHAIRE, E. and G. HOLLARD [2006]. "Controlling starting-point bias in double-bounded contingent valuation surveys". Land Economics 82, 103-111.
11. FLACHAIRE, E. and G. HOLLARD [2007]. "Starting-point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice valuation surveys". Resource and Energy Economics, mise à jour. 29(3), 183-194.
12. HAAB, T. C. and K. E. MCCONNELL [2003]. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources. Edwar Elgar.
13. HANLEY, N. and B. KRISTRP̈OM [2002]. "What's it worth? Exploring value uncertainty using interval questions in contingent valuation", working paper, 2002-10, University of Glasgow.
14. HERRIGES, J. A. and J. F. SHOGREN [1996]. "Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 112-131.
15. KAHNEMAN, D. and A. TVERSKY [1979]. "Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk". Econometrica 47, 313-327.
16. LECHNER, S., A. ROZAN, and F. LAISNEY [2003]. "A modelisation of the anchoring effect in closed-ended question with follow-up". Document de travail du BETA, 2003-07.
17. LI, C. Z. and L. MATTSSON [1995]. "Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 256-269.
18. MCFADDEN, D. and G. LEONARD [1993]. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: Methodologies for data collection and analysis. In Contingent Valuation: a critical Assessment, pp. 165-215. New York: North-Holland: Hausman.
19. READY, R. C, S. NAVRUD, and W. R. DUBOURG [2001]. "How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions?". Land Economics 77, 315-326.
20. READY, R. C., J. C. WHITEHEAD, and G. BLOMQUIST [1995]. "Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 181-196.
21. VAN KOOTEN, G. C., E. KRCMAR, and E. H. BULTE [2001]. "Preference uncertainty in non-market valuation: a fuzzy approach". American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83, 487-500.
22. WELSH, M. P. and G. L. POE [1998]. "Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 170-185.
23. WHITEHEAD, J. C. [2002]. "Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions". Land Economics 78, p. 285-297.
24. WHITEHEAD, J. C. [2004]. "Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions: reply". Land Economics 80(2), 316-319.