Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

A Comparison of Approaches to Calculating Confidence Intervals for Benefit Measures from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys

Contents:

Author Info

  • Joseph C. Cooper

Abstract

This paper compares the performance of four approaches to calculating confidence intervals around dichotomous choice contingent valuation method (DC CVM) benefit estimates. The performance of the approaches is compared using Monte Carlo simulation techniques for the two most common specifications for the welfare estimate. The results indicate that all four methods tended to perform well on average but the methods differed in the frequency with which they performed well. The results indicate the best choice depends on the sample size, on the distribution of the welfare estimate, and on the choice of functional form for the welfare estimate.

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.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146445
Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

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 University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 70 (1994)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 111-122

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:70:y:1994:i:1:p:111-122

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

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. Ioanna Fanariotu & Dimitris Skuras, 2004. "The Contribution of Scenic Beauty Indicators in Estimating Environmental Welfare Measures: A Case Study," Social Indicators Research, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 145-165, January.
  2. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2003. "Willingness of Sri Lankan Farmers to pay for a Scheme to Conserve Elephants: An Empirical Analysis," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48954, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
  3. Andy Choi, 2009. "Willingness to pay: how stable are the estimates?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 301-310, November.
  4. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 1999. "Bias and Efficiency of Single vs Double Bound Models for Contingent Valuation Studies.A Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Papers 1999.10, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  5. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
  6. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2003. "The Net Benefit of Saving the Asian Elephant: A Policy and Contingent Valuation Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48968, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
  7. English, Donald B.K., 2000. "A Simple Procedure for Generating Confidence Intervals in Tourist Spending Profiles and Resulting Economic Impacts," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 30(1).
  8. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
  9. Keith, John E. & Fawson, Christopher & Johnson, Van, 1996. "Preservation or use A contingent valuation study of wilderness designation in Utah," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 207-214, September.
  10. John Whitehead & Ju-Chin Huang & Glenn Blomquist & Richard Ready, 1998. "Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 107-116, January.
  11. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
  12. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
  13. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth Willis & Guy Garrod, 2001. "Estimating Benefits for Effective Enforcement of Speed Reduction from Dichotomous-Choice CV," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(4), pages 281-304, December.
  14. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
  15. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
  16. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Ulrike Lehr & Gerhard Wagenhals & Ursula Wolf, 2004. "Contingent Valuation of Mining Land Reclamation in East Germany," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 245/2004, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
  17. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
  18. Crutchfield, Stephen R. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Hellerstein, Daniel, 1997. "Benefits of Safer Drinking Water: The Value of Nitrate Reduction," Agricultural Economics Reports 34025, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  19. Timothy C. Haab, . "A Utility Based Repeated Discrete Choice Model of Consumer Demand," Working Papers 9611, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.

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:uwp:landec:v:70:y:1994:i:1:p:111-122. 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: ().

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.