Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 199-215

  Veronesi, Marcella ^a   Alberini, Anna ^b   Cooper, Joseph C ^c  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Anchoring; Bid design; Contingent valuation; Double bounded dichotomous choice format; Monte Carlo simulations; Starting point bias; Willingness to pay distribution

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; SURVEYS;

ANCHORING; ANCHORING MECHANISM; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE CONTINGENT VALUATION; DOUBLE-BOUNDED DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE FORMAT; LOCATION AND SCALE PARAMETERS; RIGHT-HAND SIDES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

RESOURCE VALUATION;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; SURVEY; THEORETICAL STUDY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 79955914338     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9430-1     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alberini A (1995) Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound and bivariate models. J Environ Econ Manage 28: 187-306.
2. Alberini A, Kanninen B, Carson RT (1997) Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Econ 73(3): 309-324.
3. Alberini A, Longo A, Veronesi M (2006) Basic statistical models for conjoint choice experiments. In: Kanninen B (ed) Valuing environmental amenities using choice experiments: a common sense guide to theory and practice, chap 8. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 203-227.
4. Aprahamian F, Chanel O, Luchini S (2007) Modeling starting point bias as unobserved heterogeneity in contingent valuation surveys: an application to air pollution. Am J Agric Econ 89(2): 533-547.
5. Aprahamian F, Chanel O, Luchini S (2008) Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions. Resour Energy Econ 30: 12-20.
6. Arana JE, Leon CJ (2008) Do emotions matter? coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects. Ecol Econ 66(4): 700-711.
7. Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2003) Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q J Econ 118: 73-105.
8. Baiocchi G (2005) Monte Carlo methods in environmental economics. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, chap 16. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 317-340.
9. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
10. Bergman O, Ellingsen T, Johannesson M, Svensson C (2010) Anchoring and cognitive ability. Econ Lett 107: 66-68.
11. Boyle K, Bishop RC, Welsh MC (1985) Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Econ 61(2): 188-194.
12. Brookshire D, Randall A (1978) Public policy, public goods and contingent valuation mechanisms. Staff Paper 68, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky.
13. Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data form a 'Dichotomous Choice with Follow-up' questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manage 15(3): 355-379.
14. Chien Y, Huang CJ, Shaw D (2005) A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manage 50: 362-377.
15. Cooper JC (1993) Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manage 24(1): 25-40.
16. Cooper JC (2002) Flexible functional form estimation of willingness to pay using dichotomous choice data. J Environ Econ Manage 43(2): 267-279.
17. Crooker JR, Herriges JA (2004) Parametric and semi-nonparametric estimation of willingness-to-pay in the dichotomous choice contingent valuation framework. Environ Resour Econ 27: 451-480.
18. Czajkowski JR (2009) Modeling shifts in willingness to pay from a bayesian updating perspective. Land Econ 85(2): 308-328.
19. DeShazo JR (2002) Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. J Environ Econ Manage 43: 360-385.
20. Flachaire E, Hollard G (2006) Controlling starting-point bias in double-bounded contingent valuation surveys. Land Econ 82(1): 103-111.
21. Flachaire E, Hollard G (2007) Starting-point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Resour Energy Econ 29: 183-194.
22. Green D, Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D, Mcfadden D (1998) Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resour Energy Econ 20: 85-116.
23. Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73(4): 255-263.
24. Hausman, JA (ed) (1993) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
25. Herriges JA, Shogren JF (1996) Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manage 30: 112-131.
26. Huang J-C, Nychka DW, Smith VK (2008) Semi-parametric discrete choice measures of willingness to pay. Econ Lett 101(1): 91-94.
27. Kanninen B (1991) Optimal experimental design for contingent valuation surveys. Unpublished PhD dissertation, UC Berkeley.
28. Lechner S, Rozan A, Francois L (2003) A model of anchoring effect in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up. Working paper of BETA 2003-2007, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, ULP, Strasbourg.
29. Leon R, Leon CJ (2003) Single or double bounded contingent valuation? A bayesian test. Scott J Polit Econ 50(2): 174-188.
30. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
31. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124-1131.
32. Watanabe M (2010) Nonparametric estimation of mean willingness to pay from discrete response valuation data. Am J Agric Econ 92(4): 1114-1135.
33. Whitehead JC (2002) Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Econ 78(2): 285-297.
34. Whitehead JC (2004) Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions: reply. Land Econ 80(2): 316-319.
35. Whittington D, Briscoe J, Mu X, Barron W (1990) Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the use of contingent valuation surveys in Southern Haiti. Econ Dev Cultural Change 38(2): 293-311.
36. Wilson T, Houston C, Etling K, Brekke N (1996) A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. J Exp Psychol Gen 125: 387-402.