IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v6y1997i6p637-639.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contingent valuation with an open‐ended follow‐up question: a test of scope effects

Author

Listed:
  • Bernt Kartman
  • Nils‐Olov Stålhammar
  • Magnus Johannesson

Abstract

It has been suggested that an open‐ended follow‐up question should be added to the binary contingent valuation question. Before this is generally recommended, it is important to evaluate the properties of such follow‐up questions. Using a split sample approach, we test whether the open‐ended follow‐up is sensitive to the scope of the commodity being valued. No significant scope effects were detected. It is concluded that the results obtained do not support the use of an open‐ended follow‐up in contingent valuation applications. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernt Kartman & Nils‐Olov Stålhammar & Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "Contingent valuation with an open‐ended follow‐up question: a test of scope effects," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(6), pages 637-639, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:6:y:1997:i:6:p:637-639
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199711)6:6<637::AID-HEC314>3.0.CO;2-V
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199711)6:63.0.CO;2-V
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199711)6:6<637::AID-HEC314>3.0.CO;2-V?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    2. Bernard van denBerg & Werner Brouwer & Job van Exel & Marc Koopmanschap, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 169-183, February.
    3. van Exel, N.J.A. & Brouwer, W.B.F. & van den Berg, B. & Koopmanschap, M.A., 2006. "With a little help from an anchor: Discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 836-853, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shibly Shahrier & Koji Kotani, 2016. "Labor Donation Or Money Donation? Pro-Sociality On Prevention Of Natural Disasters In A Case Of Cyclone Aila, Bangladesh," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 61(01), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    3. Denise L. Stanley, 2005. "Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness‐to‐pay for Endangered Species," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 165-179, April.
    4. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    5. Kamuanga, Mulumba & Swallow, Brent M. & Sigue, Hamade & Bauer, Burkhard, 2001. "Evaluating contingent and actual contributions to a local public good: Tsetse control in the Yale agro-pastoral zone, Burkina Faso," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 115-130, October.
    6. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Felix Munoz-Garcia & Sherzod B. Akhundjanov, 2014. "Firm Preferences for Environmental Policy: Industry Uniform or Firm Specific?," Working Papers 2014-8, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    8. 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.
    9. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    10. Das, Chhandita & Anderson, Christopher M. & Swallow, Stephen K., 2006. "Incentive Compatible Mechanism Design for Discrete Choice Surveys," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21327, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. García-Valiñas, María A. & Macintyre, Alison & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Volunteering, pro-environmental attitudes and norms," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 455-467.
    12. Andersson, Jessica E.C., 2007. "The recreational cost of coral bleaching -- A stated and revealed preference study of international tourists," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 704-715, May.
    13. Mark Morrison & Thomas Brown, 2009. "Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 307-326, November.
    14. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    15. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    16. Leonardo Becchetti & Gianluigi Conzo & Francesco Salustri, 2023. "What about the others? Conditional cooperation, climate change perception and ecological actions," Departmental Working Papers of Economics - University 'Roma Tre' 0274, Department of Economics - University Roma Tre.
    17. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2004. "An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 313-335, March.
    18. Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Contingent Valuation Elicitation Effects: Revisiting the Payment Card," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125686, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. María Xosé Vázquez & Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2006. "Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 403-417, April.
    20. Catherine M. Chambers & Paul E. Chambers & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Contingent Valuation of Quasi-Public Goods: Validity, Reliability, and Application To Valuing a Historic Site," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 137-154, March.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:6:y:1997:i:6:p:637-639. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.