This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
John Whitehead
Ju-Chin Huang
Glenn Blomquist
Richard Ready

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

In this note we conduct construct validity tests for dichotomous choice (DC) and polychotomous choice (PC) contingent valuation questions. Contrary to previous results, we find that DC and PC estimates of willingness to pay are theoretically valid, convergent valid, and similar in terms of statistical precision. Similar to previous results, PC respondents are less sensitive to information than DC respondents. We conclude that DC and PC valuation questions are construct valid for this study. Sequential PC valuation questions could be used in studies where obtaining information about the certainty or intensity of respondent preferences would be useful. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008231430184
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 11 (1998)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Pages: 107-116
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:11:y:1998:i:1:p:107-116

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: contingent valuation; dichotomous choice; polychotomous choice; construct validity;

Other versions of this item:

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.:
  1. Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C. & Hoban Thomas J. & Clifford William B., 1995. "Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users, and Non-users," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 238-251, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Kristrom, Bengt & Gerdtham, Ulf-G., 1993. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- further results," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 95-108, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Bengt Kriström, 1993. "Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 63-71, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Li Chuan-Zhong & Mattsson Leif, 1995. "Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-269, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett, 2009. "Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0919, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School, Australian National University. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. John C. Whitehead & Timothy Haab & Ju-Chin Huang, . "Part-Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Working Papers 9707, East Carolina University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc stands for Research Papers in Economics.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-7.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.