Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys

Contents:

Author Info

  • Kim, GwanSeon
  • Petrolia, Daniel R.
  • Interis, Matthew G.

Abstract

This paper introduces an alternative non-market value elicitation method—the “quasi-doublereferendum†(QDR)—applied to barrier island restoration in Mississippi. It is appropriate for surveys that elicit willingness-to-pay responses to multiple projects differing in scale only and can be used to increase efficiency while mitigating bias. We compare results to the more commonly used single-referendum (SR) method under two admissible ranges of willingness to pay: negative to positive infinity, and zero to income. The confidence intervals of the QDR models were narrower. We argue that the QDR approach should be less subject to bias than the commonly used double-referendum approach.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/134287
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Western Agricultural Economics Association in its journal Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 37 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 (August)
Pages:

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:134287

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://waeaonline.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: quasi double-bound method; single-bound method; willingness to pay; Public Economics;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Cooper, Joseph C. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Signorello, Giovanni, 2001. "One-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation," CUDARE Working Paper Series 921, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy.
  2. Donald M. McLeod & Olvar Bergland, 1999. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Using the Double-Bounded Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Format: A Test for Validity and Precision in a Bayesian Framework," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 115-125.
  3. Barbara J. Kanninen, 1993. "Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 138-146.
  4. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
  5. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
  6. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
  7. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
  8. Andersson, Henrik & Svensson, Mikael, 2006. "Cognitive Ability and Scale Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Working Papers 2006:2, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
  9. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2005. "Controlling starting-point bias in double-bounded contingent valuation surveys," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v05076, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  10. Philip Clarke, 2000. "Valuing the benefits of mobile mammographic screening units using the contingent valuation method," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(13), pages 1647-1655.
  11. Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages S80-S99, July.
  12. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
  13. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
  14. Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh & Patricia A. Champ, 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 255-267.
  15. Jeremy Clark & Lana Friesen, 2006. "The Causes of Order Effects in Contingent Valuation Surveys: An Experimental Investigation," Working Papers in Economics 06/06, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
  16. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
  17. Carson, R.T. & Mitchell, R.C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Kopp, R.J. & Presser, S. & Ruud, P.A., 1992. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," MPRA Paper 6984, University Library of Munich, Germany.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:134287. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.