IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/usuesp/28359.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Compliance Bias In Dichotomous Choice Cvm: Some Evidence From A Utah Wilderness Study

Author

Listed:
  • Keith, John E.
  • Fawson, Christopher B.

Abstract

Responses to a dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DCCV) of wilderness designation in Utah were used to determine if individuals who identified themselves as having no opinion or being neutral to wilderness designation in general and for two specific wilderness proposals would have nonnegative willingness to pay for such designation. In cases for which a sufficient number of observations permitted estimation, the estimated willingness to pay was positive and significantly different from zero and often exceeded that of individuals who identified themselves as supporting wilderness designation. This appears to support the contention that DCCV studies may generate values from respondents whether or not those respondents truly have positive willingness to pay.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith, John E. & Fawson, Christopher B., 1996. "Compliance Bias In Dichotomous Choice Cvm: Some Evidence From A Utah Wilderness Study," Economics Research Institute, ERI Study Papers 28359, Utah State University, Economics Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:usuesp:28359
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28359/files/eri9627.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28359?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:usuesp:28359. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edusuus.html .

    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.