Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Valuing the benefits of mobile mammographic screening units using the contingent valuation method

Contents:

Author Info

  • Philip Clarke
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The 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 Info

    If 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.
    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/000368400420995
    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.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.

    Volume (Year): 32 (2000)
    Issue (Month): 13 ()
    Pages: 1647-1655

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:32:y:2000:i:13:p:1647-1655

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20

    Order Information:
    Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAEC20

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

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

    Cited by:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:32:y:2000:i:13:p:1647-1655. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.