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! ]

Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Dixie Reaves ()
Randall Kramer
Thomas Holmes

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

Abstract

A three-way treatment design is used to compare contingent valuation response formats. Respondents are asked to value an endangered species (the red-cockaded woodpecker) and the restoration of its habitat following a natural disaster. For three question formats (open-ended, payment card, and double-bounded dichotomous choice), differences in survey response rates, item non-response rates, and protest bids are examined. Bootstrap techniques are used to compare means across formats and to explore differences in willingness to pay (WTP) distribution functions. Convergent validity is found in a comparison of mean WTP values, although some differences are apparent in the cumulative distribution functions. Differences across formats are also identified in item non-response rates and proportion of protest bids. Overall, the payment card format exhibits desirable properties relative to the other two formats. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

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:1008320621720
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): 14 (1999)
Issue (Month): 3 (October)
Pages: 365-383
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:14:y:1999:i:3:p:365-383

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; endangered species; question format; red-cockaded woodpecker;

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. Loomis, John B., 1990. "Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 78-85, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  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 715-19, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Kling, Catherine & Sexton, Richard, 1999. "Bootstrapping in Applied Welfare Analysis," Staff General Research Papers 1595, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  6. Trudy Ann Cameron & John Quiggin, 1992. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data From a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire," UCLA Economics Working Papers 653, UCLA Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  7. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Kealy, Mary Jo & Montgomery, Mark & Dovidio, John F., 1990. "Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: Does the nature of the good matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 244-263, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Rowe, Robert D. & Schulze, William D. & Breffle, William S., 1996. "A Test for Payment Card Biases," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 178-185, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Montgomery Claire A. & Brown Jr. , Gardner M. & Adams Darius M., 1994. "The Marginal Cost of Species Preservation: The Northern Spotted Owl," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 111-128, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. T.A. Cameron & D.D. Huppert, 1988. ""Referendum" Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values," UCLA Economics Working Papers 519, UCLA Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
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. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Poe, Gregory L. & Giraud, Kelly L. & Loomis, John B., 2002. "Simple Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions: Application to Internal and External Scope Tests in Contingent Valuation," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19664, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association). [Downloadable!]
  3. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You too can volunteer for RePEc, for example by providing information about publications in your institution.

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.