An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data-Certainty dependent payment card intervals

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 555-567

  Broberg, Thomas ^a   Brännlund, Runar ^a,b  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Elicitation format; Multiple bounded; Payment card; Predators; Preference uncertainty; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; PROBABILITY;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ELICITATION FORMAT; MULTIPLE BOUNDED; PAYMENT CARD; PREDATORS; PREFERENCE UNCERTAINTY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; POLICY ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; SWEDEN;

EID: 56549087985     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (28)

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. Ariely D., Loewenstein G., and Prelec D. "Coherent arbitrariness": stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (2003) 73-105
3. Bateman I.J., Burgess D., and Hutchinson W.G. Learning Design Contingent Valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55 (2008) 127-141
4. Broberg T., and Brännlund R. On the value of preserving the four large predators in Sweden: a regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 88 (2008) 1066-1077
5. Butler D.J., and Loomes G.C. Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon. The American Economic Review 97 (2007) 277-297
6. Cameron T.A., and Huppert D.D. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17 (1989) 230-246
7. Cameron, T., James, M.D., 1986. Utilizing "closed-ended" contingent valuation survey data for preliminary demand assessments. Working paper at the Department of Economics at University of California, Los Angeles, p. 415.
8. Cameron T., Poe G., Ethier R., and Schults W. Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (2002) 391-425
9. Champ P., and Bishop R. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics 19 (2001) 383-402
10. 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 (1997) 151-162
11. Cummings R.G., Elliott S., Harrison G.W., and Murphy J. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?. Journal of Political Economy 105 (1997) 609-621
12. Cummings R.G., Harrison G.W., and Rutström E.E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?. American Economic Review 85 (1995) 260-266
13. Evans M.F., Flores N.E., and Boyle K.J. Multiple bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions. Land Economics 79 (2003) 549-560
14. Groothuis P., and Whitehead J.C. Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Applied Economics 34 (2002) 1935-1940
15. Hanley, N., Kriström, B., Shogren, J., forthcoming. Coherent arbitrariness: on value uncertainty for environmental goods. Land Economics.
16. Harrison G.W., and Kriström B. On the interpretation of responses in contingent valuation surveys. In: Johansson P.-O., and Mäler K.-G. (Eds). Current Issues in Environmental Economics (1995), Manchester University Press, Manchester 35-57
17. Håkansson C. A new valuation question-analysis of and from interval open-ended data in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 39 (2008) 175-188
18. Li C.-H., 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. Loomis J., and Ekstrand E. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl. Journal of Ecological Economics 27 (1998) 29-41
20. Plott C.R. Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K., Colombatto E., Perleman M., and Schmidt C. (Eds). Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour (1996), St. Martin's, McMillan and NY 225-250
21. Ready R.C., Whitehead J.C., and Blomquist G.C. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (1995) 219-232
22. Roach B., Boyle K.J., and Welsh M.P. Testing bid design effects in multiple-bounded contingent-valuation questions. Land Economics 78 (2002) 121-131
23. van Kooten C.G., Krcmar E., and Bulte E.H. Preference uncertainty in nonmarket valuation: a fuzzy approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (2001) 487-500
24. Vossler C.A., Ethier R.G., Poe G.L., and Welsh M.P. Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: results from field validity test. Southern Economic Journal 69 (2003) 886-902
25. Vossler C.A., and Poe G.L. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty: a comment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49 (2005) 197-200
26. Vossler C.A., Poe G.L., Welsh M.P., and Ethier R.G. Bid design effects in multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 29 (2004) 401-418
27. Wang H. Treatment of 'don't know' responses in contingent valuation survey: a random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 (1997) 219-232
28. Welsh M., 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