Valuing the benefits of mobile mammographic screening units using the contingent valuation method
AbstractThe benefits of improving access to mammographic screening are estimated using a contingent valuation experiment conducted on 458 women in 19 rural Australian towns. The contingent valuation survey provides women with information on mammographic screening and uses a closed-ended format to elicit their willingness to pay for a visit of a mobile mammographic screening unit. Single and double-bounded versions of the discrete response contingent valuation method are employed in the estimation of willingness to pay. The double-bounded contingent valuation approach is shown to be biased due to respondents having a greater disposition to respond 'no' when the bid amount in the follow-up question is higher than the bid amount offered in the initial question. Several approaches to dealing with this bias are examined.
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 Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.
Volume (Year): 32 (2000)
Issue (Month): 13 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
- Kim, GwanSeon & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2012. "A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), August.
- Christine A. Kennedy, 2002. "Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon-induced lung cancer prevention," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 585-598.
- Neil Powe & Kenneth Willis & Guy Garrod, 2006. "Difficulties in valuing street light improvement: trust, surprise and bound effects," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 371-381.
- Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni & Anna Maria Pinna, 2010. "Public versus private demand for covering long-term care expenditures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(28), pages 3651-3668.
- Philip M. Clarke, 2002. "Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 117-127.
- Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.