IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v84y2002i4p1091-1102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Language-Related Differences in a Contingent Valuation Study: English Versus Spanish

Author

Listed:
  • John B. Loomis
  • Lucas S. Bair
  • Armando González-Cabán

Abstract

To test the similarity of English- and Spanish-speaking households responses to a contingent valuation survey, phone interviews were conducted in both languages regarding two forest fire prevention programs. While there were similar response rates, there were significant differences in the most frequent reasons given for refusing to pay. In the pooled logit model, the language intercept and bid interaction variables were insignificant in both programs. The likelihood ratio test of separate logit equations showed no statistical difference between English- and Spanish-speaking households responses to either program. Mean benefits reported by Spanish-speaking households were about one-third lower than English-speaking households, although the difference is not statistically significant. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • John B. Loomis & Lucas S. Bair & Armando González-Cabán, 2002. "Language-Related Differences in a Contingent Valuation Study: English Versus Spanish," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1091-1102.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:84:y:2002:i:4:p:1091-1102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-8276.00370
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. John Loomis & Armando Gonzalez‐Caban & Hayley Hesseln, 2004. "Multicultural Evaluation of the Performance of Contingent Valuation for Forest Fire Prevention," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(3), pages 407-419, July.
    2. Loomis, John B. & Le Trong Hung & González-Cabán, Armando, 2009. "Willingness to pay function for two fuel treatments to reduce wildfire acreage burned: A scope test and comparison of White and Hispanic households," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 155-160, May.
    3. Xiaolin Ren & Arianto A. Patunru & John B. Braden, 2008. "Language‐Related Differences In Environmental Benefits Estimation: Evidence From A Mail Survey," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(1), pages 13-31, January.
    4. Denise L. Stanley, 2005. "Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness‐to‐pay for Endangered Species," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 165-179, April.
    5. Shrestha, Anusha & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Roberts, Scott D. & Gordon, Jason S. & Adhikari, Ram K., 2021. "Nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to pay for prescribed burning to lower wildfire hazards," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Kaval, Pamela & Loomis, John & Seidl, Andy, 2007. "Willingness-to-pay for prescribed fire in the Colorado (USA) wildland urban interface," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 928-937, May.
    8. Schlapfer, Felix & Brauer, Ingo, 2007. "Theoretical incentive properties of contingent valuation questions: Do they matter in the field?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 451-460, May.
    9. Fiore, Stephen M. & Harrison, Glenn W. & Hughes, Charles E. & Rutstrm, E. Elisabet, 2009. "Virtual experiments and environmental policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 65-86, January.
    10. Walker, Susan H. & Rideout, Douglas B. & Loomis, John B. & Reich, Robin, 2007. "Comparing the value of fuel treatment options in northern Colorado's urban and wildland-urban interface areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 694-703, February.
    11. González-Cabán, Armando & Loomis, John B. & Rodriguez, Andrea & Hesseln, Hayley, 2007. "A comparison of CVM survey response rates, protests and willingness-to-pay of Native Americans and general population for fuels reduction policies," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 49-71, May.
    12. Regmi, Arun & Kreye, Melissa M. & Kreye, Jesse K., 2023. "Forest landowner demand for prescribed fire as an ecological management tool in Pennsylvania, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    13. John Loomis & Lindsey Ellingson & Armando Gonzalez‐Caban & Andy Seidl, 2006. "The Role of Ethnicity and Language in Contingent Valuation Analysis," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(3), pages 559-586, July.
    14. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L. & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2004. "Model Selection for Discrete Dependent Variables: Better Statistics for Better Steaks," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Le Trong Hung & John B. Loomis & Vu Tien Thinh, 2007. "Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 173-185.
    16. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2004. "Forecasting Limited Dependent Variables: Better Statistics For Better Steaks," 2004 Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2004, Tulsa, Oklahoma 34612, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    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:84:y:2002:i:4:p:1091-1102. 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.