IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v70y1994i1p97-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consequences of Using Different Question Formats in Contingent Valuation: A Monte Carlo Study

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey L. Jordan
  • Abdelmoneim H. Elnagheeb

Abstract

Monte Carlo experiments were conducted to compare regression parameter and willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates using the contingent valuation method's referendum and payment-card questioning formats. Strategic bias was controlled by making responses consistent with the true WTP. Two WTP models were constructed: linear and log-linear in explanatory variables. Based on the efficiency and mean-squared-error criteria, the payment-card model was superior to the referendum model. However, neither model outdid the other when the unbiasedness criterion was used. The performance of either model depends on the choice and distribution of the bids and payment-card categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey L. Jordan & Abdelmoneim H. Elnagheeb, 1994. "Consequences of Using Different Question Formats in Contingent Valuation: A Monte Carlo Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 97-110.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:70:y:1994:i:1:p:97-110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146444
    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 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. Walid Oueslati & Nicole Madariaga & Julien Salanié, 2008. "Évaluation contingente d’aménités paysagères liées à un espace vert urbain. Une application au cas du parc Balzac de la ville d’Angers," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 87(2), pages 77-99.
    2. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
    3. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.
    4. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2002. "Willingness to Pay for Conservation of the Asian Elephant in Sri Lanka: A Contingent Valuation Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48738, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    5. Kim, Hong Jin & Cho, Yongsung, 2002. "Estimating Willingness To Pay For Reduced Copper Contamination In Southwestern Minnesota," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    7. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1998. "Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Paper CRENoS 199801, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    8. Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John, 2017. "How Sensitive Are Environmental Valuations To Economic Downturns?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 235-240.
    9. Ricardo Faria & Raul Matsuhita & Jorge Nogueira & Benjamin Tabak, 2007. "Realism Versus Statistical Efficiency: A Note on Contingent Valuation with Follow-up Queries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(4), pages 451-462, December.

    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:uwp:landec:v:70:y:1994:i:1:p:97-110. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.