A Comparison of Willingness to Pay Estimation Techniques From Referendum Questions
AbstractReferendum style willingness to pay questions have been used to estimatepassive use values. This referendum question format method may beproblematic for many reasons, including the statistical techniques used toestimate willingness to pay from discrete responses. This paper comparesa number of parametric, semi-nonparametric and nonparametric estimationtechniques using data collected from US households regarding Federalprotection of endangered fish species.The advantages and disadvantagesof the various statistical models used are explored. A hypothesis test forstatistical equality among estimation techniques is performed using ajackknife bootstrapping method. When the equality test is applied, themodeling techniques do show significant differences in some possiblecomparisons, but only those that are nonparamentric. This can lead toconflicting interpretations of what the data show. Resource managers andpolicy analysts need to use caution when interpreting results until anindustry standard can be developed for estimating willingness to pay fromclosed ended questions. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.
Volume (Year): 20 (2001)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263
contingent valuation; endangered species; nonmarket economics; willingness to pay;
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.:
- John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
- Gallant, A. Ronald, 1982. "Unbiased determination of production technologies," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 285-323, November.
- Flores, Nicholas E., 1996. "Reconsidering the Use of Hicks Neutrality to Recover Total Value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-64, July.
- 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.
- Chen, Heng Z. & Randall, Alan, 1997. "Semi-nonparametric estimation of binary response models with an application to natural resource valuation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1-2), pages 323-340.
- Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
- Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, .
"Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions,"
9610, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
- Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
- Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-66, March.
- Bengt Kristrom, 1990. "A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 135-139.
- 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.
- Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
- Douglas Noonan, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Cultural Resources: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 159-176, November.
- Álvarez Díaz, Marcos & González Gómez, Manuel & Saavedra González, Ángeles & De Uña Álvarez, Jacobo, 2010. "On dichotomous choice contingent valuation data analysis: Semiparametric methods and Genetic Programming," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 145-156, April.
- Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13.
- Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.