Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies

Contents:

Author Info

  • Riccardo Scarpa
  • Ian Bateman

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Interval data analysis of CV discrete choice responses delivers efficiency gains which must be weighed against the risk of introducing strategic response bias. Efficiency gains are also achievable by improved bid design. We assess these gains on median WTP estimates first in an empirical application, then by means of a Monte Carlo experiment comparing three different bid designs. Improved, but sub-optimal, bid design delivers comparable gains to those achieved by one and two follow-up questions. The first follow-up captures more than 50% of the efficiency gain provided by a second follow-up.

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/3147230
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): 76 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 299-311

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:76:y:2000:i:2:p:299-311

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

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

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. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
  2. 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.
  3. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
  4. Kang, Heechan & Haab, Timothy C., 2006. "Inconsistent responses in the dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21394, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  5. Giaccaria Sergio & Frontuto Vito & Dalmazzone Silvana, 2010. "Who’s afraid of power lines? Merging survey and GIS data to account for spatial heterogeneity," Department of Economics Working Papers 201002, University of Turin.
  6. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Dupont, Diane P. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2006. "Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method: distinguishing strategic behaviour from the anchoring heuristic," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21104, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  7. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
  8. 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.
  9. Hanley, Nicholas & Riera, Antoni & Torres, Cati, 2009. "The implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2009-07, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  10. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
  11. 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, International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(4), pages 451-462, December.
  12. Rong-Chang Jou & Yuan-Chan Wu & Ke-Hong Chen, 2011. "Analysis of the environmental benefits of a motorcycle idling stop policy at urban intersections," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 1017-1033, November.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Neil Powe & Kenneth Willis & Guy Garrod, 2006. "Difficulties in valuing street light improvement: trust, surprise and bound effects," Applied Economics, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 371-381.
  16. Jorge Araña & Carmelo León, 2007. "Repeated Dichotomous Choice Formats for Elicitation of Willingness to Pay: Simultaneous Estimation and Anchoring Effect," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 475-497, April.
  17. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, 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:uwp:landec:v:76:y:2000:i:2:p:299-311

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.