IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/nejare/29009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Models For Contingent Valuation Surveys: Statistical Efficiency And The Precision Of Benefit Estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Timothy A.
  • Loomis, John B.

Abstract

This paper empirically tested the three conditions identified by McConnell for equivalence of the linear utility difference model and the valuation function approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Using a contingent valuation survey for deer hunting in California, two of the three conditions were violated. Even though the models are not simple linear transforms of each other for this survey, estimates of mean willingness to pay and their associated 95% confidence intervals around the mean were quite similar for the valuation methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Timothy A. & Loomis, John B., 1992. "Comparing Models For Contingent Valuation Surveys: Statistical Efficiency And The Precision Of Benefit Estimates," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-7, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nejare:29009
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.29009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/29009/files/21020170.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.29009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy E. Bockstael & Ivar E. Strand, Jr., 1987. "The Effect of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(1), pages 11-20.
    2. 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 715-719, November.
    3. McConnell, K. E., 1990. "Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 19-34, January.
    4. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Souter, Ray A. & Bowker, James Michael, 1996. "A Note On Nonlinearity Bias And Dichotomous Choice Cvm: Implications For Aggregate Benefits Estimation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-6.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.
    2. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2015. "The public’s value for developing ocean energy technology in the Republic of Korea: A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 432-439.
    3. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    4. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    5. Seung-Jun Kwak & Seung-Hoon Yoo & Sang-Yong Han, 2003. "Estimating the Public's Value for Urban Forest in the Seoul Metropolitan Area of Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(11), pages 2207-2221, October.
    6. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    7. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    8. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    9. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    10. Yoo, Seung-Hoon & Kwak, So-Yoon, 2009. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5408-5416, December.
    11. Carmelo León & Francisco Vázquez-Polo & Roberto González, 2003. "Elicitation of Expert Opinion in Benefit Transfer of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 199-210, October.
    12. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    13. Ju-Chin Huang & V. Kerry Smith, 1998. "Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 186-202.
    14. Johnston, Robert J. & Bauer, Dana Marie & Swallow, Stephen K., 2000. "The Influence Of Spatial Land Use Patterns On Rural Amenity Values And Willingness To Pay For Growth Management: Evidence From A Contingent Choice Survey," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21766, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Leslie Richardson & Lynne Lewis, 2022. "Getting to know you: individual animals, wildlife webcams, and willingness to pay for brown bear preservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 673-692, March.
    16. Lim, Seul-Ye & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Public's willingness to pay a premium for bioethanol in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-27.
    17. Timothy Park & John Loomis, 1996. "Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 149-162, March.
    18. Kynda R. Curtis & Klaus Moeltner, 2007. "The effect of consumer risk perceptions on the propensity to purchase genetically modified foods in Romania," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 263-278.
    19. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    20. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:nejare:29009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nareaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.