Accounting for respondent uncertainty to improve willingness-to-pay estimates

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 58, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 381-401

  Moore, Rebecca ^a   Bishop, Richard C ^b   Provencher, Bill ^b   Champ, Patricia A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GRUS AMERICANA;

EID: 77955251887     PISSN: 00083976     EISSN: 17447976     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01190.x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J. Stated preferences approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80:64-75.
2. Alberini A, Boyle K, Welsh M. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 45:40-62.
3. Berrens R P, Jenkins-Smith H, Bohara A K, Silva C L. Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: Fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 44:144-68.
4. Bishop R C. Where to from here. A Primer on Non-Market Valuation 2003, 537-564. Champ P ABoyle K JBrown T C. In, edited by, pp, Boston, MA, Kluwer Academic Publishers
5. Blumenschein K, Blomquist G C, Johannesson M, Horn N, Freeman P. Eliciting willingness to pay withough bias: Evidence from a field experiment. The Economic Journal 2008, 118:114-37.
6. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist G C, Liljas B, O'Conor R M. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal 1998, 65:169-77.
7. Byrnes B, Jones C, Goodman S. Contingent valuation and real economic commitments: Evidence from electric utility green pricing programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1999, 42:149-66.
8. Cameron T A. Updating subjective risks in the presence of conflicting information: An application to climate change. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2005, 30(1):63-97.
9. Cameron T A, Poe G, Ethier R, Schulze W. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 44:391-425.
10. Carson R, Groves R, Machina M. Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions 1999, Oslo, Norway, Plenary Address, European Association of Resource and Environmental Economists
11. Carson R T, Hanemann W M, Mitchell R C. The Use of Simulated Political Markets to Value Public Goods 1986, San Diego, CA, Economics Department, University of California
12. Champ P A, Bishop R C. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: An empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental Resource Economics 2001, 19:383-402.
13. Champ P A, Brown T C. A comparison of Contingent and Actual Voting Behavior. 1997, 10 Interim Report. Natural Resource Planning, Portland, OR
14. Champ P A, Moore R, Bishop R C. A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2009, 38(2):166-80.
15. Champ P A, Bishop R C, Brown T C, McCollum D W. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33:151-62.
16. Chilton S, Hutchinson W G. Some further implications of inorporating the warm glow of giving into welfare measures: A comment on the use of onation mechanisms by Champ et al. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1999, 37:202-9.
17. Cooper J C. A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measures from dichotomous-choice contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 1994, 70:111-22.
18. Evans M F, Flores N E, Boyle K J. Multiple-bounded uncertainty choice data as probalistic intentions. Land Economics 2003, 79:549-60.
19. Flores N E. Non-paternalistic altruism and welfare economics. Journal of Public Economics 2002, 83:293-305.
20. Haab T C, McConnel K E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation 2003, Northhampton, MA, Edward Elgar
21. Hanemann W M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66:332-41.
22. Harrison G W. Hypothetical bias over uncertain outcomes. Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, List J. In, edited by, pp. 41-69. Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Publisher
23. Hoehn J, Randall A. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1987, 14:226-47.
24. Johnston R J. Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 52:469-81.
25. Kling C L. Estimating the precision of welfare measures. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1991, 21:244-59.
26. Krinsky I, Robb A. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 1986, 86:715-9.
27. Li C Z, Mattsson L. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 28:256-69.
28. Loomis J, Ekstrand E. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: The case of the Mexican spotted owl. Ecological Economics 1998, 27:29-41.
29. McConnell K E. Does altruism undermine existence value. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 32:22-37.
30. Ready R, Navrud S, Dubourg W R. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions. Land Economics 2001, 77:315-26.
31. Ready R, Whitehead J, Blomquist G. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 29:181-96.
32. Riddel M, Shaw W D. A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2006, 32:131-50.
33. Samnaliev M, Stevens T H, More T. A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:507-19.
34. Shaikh S L, Sun L, van Kooten G C. Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments. Ecological Economics 2007, 62:115-25.
35. Spencer M A, Swallow S K, Miller C J. Valuing water quality monitoring: A contingent valuation experiment involving hypothetical and real payments. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 1998, 27:23-42.
36. Sun L, van Kooten G C. Comparing fuzzy and probabilistic approaches to preference uncertainty in non-market valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 42:471-89.
37. van Kooten G C, Krcmar E, Bulte E. Preference uncertainty in non-market valuation: A fuzzy approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001, 83(3):487-500.
38. Vossler C A, Kerkvliet J. A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 45:631-49.
39. Vossler C A, Ethier R G, Poe G L, Welsh M P. Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: Results from a field validity test. Southern Economics Journal 2003, 69:886-902.
40. Vossler C A, Kerkvliet J, Polasky S, Gainutdinova O. Externally validating contingent valuation: An open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2003, 51:261-77.
41. Wang H. Treatment of " don't-know" responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 32:219-32.
42. Welsh M P, Poe G L. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: Comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998, 36:170-85.