A mixed approach to payment certainty calibration in discrete choice welfare estimation

Applied Economics

Volumn 43, Issue 17, 2011, Pages 2129-2142

  Brouwer, Roy ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; HETEROGENEITY; INCOME DISTRIBUTION; PRICE DYNAMICS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WELFARE PROVISION;

EID: 79960813332     PISSN: 00036846     EISSN: 14664283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00036840903035977     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C. and Carvajal, F. (2004) Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: the case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1108-21.
2. Akter, S., Brouwer, R., Brander, L. and van Beukering, P. (2009) Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets, Ecological Economics, 68, 1858-63.
3. Alberini, A., Boyle, K. and Welsh, M. (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.
4. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (2003) 'Coherent arbitrariness': stable demand curves without stable preferences, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73-105.
5. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Federal Register, 58, 4601-14.
6. Ben-Akiva, M. E. and Swait, J. D. (1986) The Akaike likelihood ratio index, Transportation Science, 20, 133-6.
7. Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G. C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N. and Freeman, P. (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment, The Economic Journal, 118, 114-37.
8. Cameron, T. A. and James, M. D. (1987) Efficient estimation methods for closed-ended contingent valuation survey data, Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 269-76.
9. Champ, P. A. and Bishop, R. C. (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias, Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 383-402.
10. Champ, P. A., Bishop, R. C., Brown, T. C. and McCollum, D. W. (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 151-62.
11. Chang, J.-I., Yoo, S.-H. and Kwak, S.-J. (2007) An investigation of preference uncertainty in the contingent valuation study, Applied Economics Letters, 14, 691-5.
12. Greene, W. A. (2003) Econometric Analysis, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
13. Hausman, J. A. and Wise, D. A. (1978) A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogenous preferences, Econometrica, 46, 403-26.
14. Hoeffler, S. and Ariely, D. (1999) Constructing stable preferences: a look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8, 113-39.
15. Johannesson, M., Liljas, B. and Johansson, P.-O. (1998) An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions, Applied Economics, 30, 643-7.
16. Li, C.-Z. and Mattsson, L. (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 256-69.
17. List, J. A. (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 41-71.
18. List, J. A. and Gallet, C. A. (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?, Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241-54.
19. Loomis, J. and Ekstrand, E. (1998) Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl, Ecological Economics, 27, 29-41.
20. Meyerhoff, J. and Liebe, U. (2006) Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation, Ecological Economics, 57, 583-94.
21. Poe, G., Clark, J., Rondeau, D. and Schulze, W. (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 105-31.
22. Ready, R. C., Whitehead, J. C. and Blomquist, G. C. (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 181-96.
23. Samnaliev, M., Stevens, T. H. and More, T. (2006) A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation, Ecological Economics, 57, 507-19.
24. Scaldit (2006) Scaldit report. Transnational analysis of the state of the aquatic environment of the international Scheldt river basin district: pilot project for testing the European guidance documents, Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, Erembodegmem, Belgium. Available at http://www.scaldit.org (accessed 8 June 2009).
25. Schkade, D. A. and Payne, J. W. (1994) How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88-109.
26. Shaikh, S. L., Sun, L. and van Kooten, G. C. (2007) Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: a comparison of empirical treatments, Ecological Economics, 62, 115-25.
27. Train, K. (2003) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
28. Veisten, K. and Navrud, S. (2006) Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passiveuse values: assessing the effect of an induced truthtelling mechanism and elicitation formats, Applied Economics, 38, 735-56.
29. Vossler, C. A., Ethier, R. G., Poe, G. L. and Welsh, M. P. (2003) Payment certainty in discrete choice valuation responses: results from a field validity test, Southern Economic Journal, 69, 886-902.
30. Wang, H. (1997) Treatment of don't know responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 219-32.
31. Welsh, M. P. and Poe, G. L. (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36, 170-85.