Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Respondent Consistency in a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

We present the results of an internet-based contingent choice survey about management options at North Cascades National Park, focusing on respondent consistency. A tournament-style contingent ranking design followed by a contingent rating exercise allows for tests of different kinds of consistency in survey responses. Many respondents give inconsistent responses, but these inconsistencies do not create large differences in estimated tradeoffs between scenario attributes.

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://commons.colgate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=econ_facschol
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Department of Economics, Colgate University in its series Working Papers with number 2010-05.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Feb 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cgt:wpaper:2010-05

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 13 Oak Drive, Hamilton, NY 13346-1389
Phone: (315) 228-7533
Fax: (315) 228-7033
Web page: http://www.colgate.edu/econ/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: contingent ranking; contingent rating; survey respondent consistency;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Barbara E. Baarsma, 2004. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Others 0404006, EconWPA.
  2. Korinek, Anton & Mistiaen, Johan A. & Ravallion, Martin, 2005. "An econometric method of correcting for unit nonresponse bias in surveys," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3711, The World Bank.
  3. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
  4. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
  5. Robert W. Turner, 2002. "Market Failures and the Rationale for National Parks," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 347-356, January.
  6. Robert W. Turner & Laura Noddin & Alita Giuda, 2005. "Estimating nonuse values using conjoint analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15.
  7. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2004. "Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 331-363, March.
  8. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
  9. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
  10. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
  11. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
  12. Glenn Harrison, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 125-162, 05.
  13. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
  14. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:17:y:2005:i:7:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
  15. Caplan, Arthur J. & Grijalva, Therese C. & Jakus, Paul M., 2002. "Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 185-197, December.
  16. John Loomis & Armando Gonzalez-Caban & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 499-506.
  17. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
  18. Begona Alvarez-Farizo & Nick Hanley & Ramon Barberan, 2001. "The Value of Leisure Time: A Contingent Rating Approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(5), pages 681-699.
  19. Garrod, G. D. & Willis, K. G., 1997. "The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 45-61, April.
  20. Richard G. Walsh & John B. Loomis & Richard A. Gillman, 1983. "Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(4), pages 14-29.
  21. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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:cgt:wpaper:2010-05. 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: (Chad Sparber).

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.