IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v73y1991i4p1255-1263..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Hanemann
  • John Loomis
  • Barbara Kanninen

Abstract

The statistical efficiency of conventional dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys can be improved by asking each respondent a second dichotomous choice question which depends on the response to the first question—if the first response is "yes," the second bid is some amount greater than the first bid; while, if the first response is "no," the second bid is some amount smaller. This "double-bounded" approach is shown to be asymptotically more efficient than the conventional, "singlebounded" approach. Using data from a survey of Californians regarding their willingness to pay for wetlands in the San Joaquin Valley, we show that, in a finite sample, the gain in efficiency can be very substantial.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:73:y:1991:i:4:p:1255-1263.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1242453
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:oup:ajagec:v:73:y:1991:i:4:p:1255-1263.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.