Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Controlling starting-point bias in double-bounded contingent valuation surveys

Contents:

Author Info

  • Emmanuel Flachaire

    ()
    (EUREQUA - Equipe Universitaire de Recherche en Economie Quantitative - CNRS : UMR8594 - Université Paris 1 - Panthéon-Sorbonne)

  • Guillaume Hollard

    ()
    (OEP - Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée (UPEMLV))

Abstract

In this paper, we study starting point bias in double-bounded contingent valuation surveys. This phenomenon arises in applications that use multiple valuation questions. Indeed, response to follow-up valuation questions may be influenced by the bid proposed in the initial valuation question. Previous researches have been conducted in order to control for such an effect. However, they find that efficiency gains are lost when we control for undesirable response effects, relative to a single dichotomous choice question. Contrary to these results, we propose a way to control for starting point bias in double-bounded questions with gains in efficiency.

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://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/64/31/PDF/V05076.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by HAL in its series Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) with number halshs-00196431.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: May 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-00196431

Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00196431
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/

Related research

Keywords: Starting-point bias; contingent valuation.;

Other versions of this item:

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. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
  2. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
  3. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
  4. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
  5. John Crooker & Joseph Herriges, 2004. "Parametric and Semi-Nonparametric Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay in the Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(4), pages 451-480, April.
  6. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1985. "Some Issues In Continuous - And Discrete - Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), April.
  7. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
  8. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
  9. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
  10. Smith, V. Kerry, 1985. "Some Issues In Discrete Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), April.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Dambala Gelo & Steven F Koch, 2012. "Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Observing Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM," Working Papers 272, Economic Research Southern Africa.
  2. Andrea Ghermandi & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, 2011. "A Global Map of Costal Recreation Values: results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis," Working Papers 2011_08, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
  3. Hu, Wuyang & Zhong, Funing & Ding, Yulian, 2006. "Actual Media Reports on GM Foods and Chinese Consumers' Willingness to Pay for GM Soybean Oil," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(02), August.
  4. Aprahamian, Frederic & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stephane, 2008. "Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 12-20, January.
  5. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2007. "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 183-194, September.
  6. Kang, Heechan & Haab, Timothy C. & Interis, Matthew G., 2013. "Identifying inconsistent responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 396-411.
  7. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007. "Model selection in iterative valuation questions," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00176033, HAL.
  8. Nobuyuki Ito & Kenji Takeuchi & Takahiro Tsuge & Atsuo Kishimoto, 2012. "The Motivation behind Behavioral Thresholds: A Latent Class Approach," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(3), pages 1831-1847.
  9. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007. "Starting-point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Post-Print halshs-00175925, HAL.
  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. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2005. "Une approche comportementale de l'évaluation contingente," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00196433, HAL.
  12. Kim, GwanSeon & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2012. "A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), August.
  13. 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.
  14. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
  15. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007. "Model selection in iterative valuation questions," Post-Print halshs-00176033, HAL.

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:hal:cesptp:halshs-00196431. 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: (CCSD).

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.