IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/2008010108000016651.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Three essays on contingent valuation method

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Chih-Chen

Abstract

The objective of this research was to examine some incentive and informational properties of contingent valuation surveys and provide some suggestions in survey design. The contingent valuation method uses survey questions to elicit individuals' preferences for nonmarket goods. The essential task of a contingent valuation exercise is to design a questionnaire which elicits respondents' preference for the good being valued.;This dissertation includes three essays that contribute to the contingent valuation literature. The contingent valuation method is widely used in estimating the economic value of nonmarket goods. The first essay offers an empirical test of a theoretical result in the contingent valuation literature, which argues that respondents will respond to survey questions truthfully, if they perceive the survey as being "consequential", regardless of the degree of consequentiality. The second essay tests the commitment cost theory suggested by Zhao and Kling (2001, 2004). They argue that a respondent's willingness to pay for a good at a particular point of time depends not only on the intrinsic value of the good, but also on the timing of the decision and the characteristics of the market environment. The third study examines whether three value elicitation formats---the dichotomous choice question, the multinomial choice question, and a modified multinomial choice question suggested by Carson and Groves (2007)---provide comparable welfare estimates

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Chih-Chen, 2008. "Three essays on contingent valuation method," ISU General Staff Papers 2008010108000016651, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:2008010108000016651
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3184311c-9891-4542-999a-c9dac0fe85ea/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhao, Jinhua & Kling, Catherine L., 2001. "A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 293-300, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    2. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    3. Benjamin Radoc, 2020. "Bandit with similarity information," Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University, Working Paper Series 202002, Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University.
    4. John Fox & Jayson Lusk, 2003. "Value elicitation in laboratory and retail environments," Framed Field Experiments 00185, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Catherine L. Kling & John A. List & Jinhua Zhao, 2013. "A Dynamic Explanation Of The Willingness To Pay And Willingness To Accept Disparity," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 909-921, January.
    6. Pappalardo, Gioacchino & West, Grant Howard & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Toscano, Sabrina & Pecorino, Biagio, 2022. "The effect of a UNESCO world heritage site designation on willingness to pay to preserve an agri-environmental good: The case of the dry stone walls in Mt. Etna," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Lee, Gi-Eu & Loveridge, Scott & Joshi, Satish, 2017. "Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 328-336.
    8. Dennis Dittrich & Werner Guth & Boris Maciejovsky, 2005. "Overconfidence in investment decisions: An experimental approach," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 471-491.
    9. Michal Jakubczyk, 2016. "Choosing from multiple alternatives in cost-effectiveness analysis with fuzzy willingness-to-pay/accept and uncertainty," KAE Working Papers 2016-006, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    10. Lee, Ji Yong & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Deck, Cary & Drichoutis, Andreas, 2017. "Cognitive Ability and Bidding Behavior in Experimental Auction," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258347, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Bass, Daniel A. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Messer, Kent D., 2021. "A case for measuring negative willingness to pay for consumer goods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Jay Corrigan & Catherine Kling & Jinhua Zhao, 2008. "Willingness to Pay and the Cost of Commitment: An Empirical Specification and Test," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 285-298, June.
    13. Christina McGranaghan & Steven G. Otto, 2022. "Choice uncertainty and the endowment effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 83-104, August.
    14. Courard-Hauri David & Lauer Stephen A., 2012. "Taking "All Men Are Created Equal" Seriously: Toward a Metric for the Intergroup Comparison of Utility Functions Through Life Values," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-30, August.
    15. Sayman, Serdar & Onculer, Ayse, 2005. "Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 289-312, April.
    16. Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2003. "Value elicitation in retail and laboratory environments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 27-34, April.
    17. Mark Tocock & Dugald Tinch & Darla Hatton MacDonald & John M. Rose, 2023. "Managing the energy trilemma of reliability, affordability and renewables: Assessing consumer demands with discrete choice experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(2), pages 155-175, April.
    18. Krüger, Niclas A. & Svensson, Mikael, 2009. "The impact of real options on willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 563-569, May.
    19. repec:ken:wpaper:0603 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Catherine L. Kling & John A. List & Jinhua Zhao, 2003. "WTP/WTA Disparity: Have We Been Observing Dynamic Values but Interpreting Them as Static?, The," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 03-wp333, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    21. Rolando Guzman & Charles Kolstad, 2007. "Researching Preferences, Valuation and Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(3), pages 465-487, July.

    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:isu:genstf:2008010108000016651. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.