IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/59325.html

A Pseudo-Sequential Choice Model for Valuing Multi-Attribute Environmental Policies or Programs in Contingent Valuation Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Volinskiy, Dmitriy
  • Bergstrom, John C.
  • Cornwell, Christopher M.
  • Holmes, Thomas P.

Abstract

The assumption of independence of irrelevant alternatives in a sequential contingent valuation format should be questioned. Statistically, most valuation studies treat nonindependence as a consequence of unobserved individual effects. Another approach is to consider an inferential process in which any particular choice is part of a general choosing strategy of a survey respondent. A stochastic model is suggested, consistent with the reflexivity, transitivity, and continuity axioms of utility analysis. An application of this theoretical model to the valuation of watershed ecosystem restoration demonstrates that an empirical model recognizing reflexivity and transitivity, and also allowing for continuity, shows the highest in-sample predictive ability.

Suggested Citation

  • Volinskiy, Dmitriy & Bergstrom, John C. & Cornwell, Christopher M. & Holmes, Thomas P., 2010. "A Pseudo-Sequential Choice Model for Valuing Multi-Attribute Environmental Policies or Programs in Contingent Valuation Applications," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(01), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:59325
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.59325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/59325/files/ARER%2039-1%209-21%20Volinskiy-2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.59325?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McClennen,Edward F., 1990. "Rationality and Dynamic Choice," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521360470, November.
    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. Hongmin Li & Scott Webster, 2017. "Optimal Pricing of Correlated Product Options Under the Paired Combinatorial Logit Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(5), pages 1215-1230, 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. John D. Hey & Gianna Lotito, 2018. "Naive, resolute or sophisticated? A study of dynamic decision making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 11, pages 275-299, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2016. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity," Working Papers 112111041, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    3. Nathan Huntley & Matthias Troffaes, 2012. "Normal form backward induction for decision trees with coherent lower previsions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 111-134, May.
    4. Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2012. "Are bygones bygones?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 185-202, August.
      • Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Are bygones bygones?," Discussion Papers 2005-21, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
      • Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2010. "Are bygones bygones?," Discussion Papers 2010-01, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Beckmann, Klaus, 2007. "Jon Elster und das Zeitinkonsistenz-Problem," Discussion Papers 2007-21, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    6. G.E. Kersten & G.R. Mallory, 1998. "Rational Inefficient Compromises in Negotiation," Working Papers ir98024, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    7. Güth, Werner & Kliemt, Hartmut, 2001. "From full to bounded rationality: The limits of unlimited rationality," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2001,12, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    8. Christian Koboldt, 1996. "Consistent planning, backwards induction, and rule-governed behavior," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-48, March.
    9. John D. Hey, 2005. "Do People (Want To) Plan?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 52(1), pages 122-138, February.
    10. Hill, Brian, 2020. "Dynamic consistency and ambiguity: A reappraisal," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 289-310.
    11. Méder, Zsombor Z. & Flesch, János & Peeters, Ronald, 2017. "Naiveté and sophistication in dynamic inconsistency," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 40-54.
    12. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 2000. "Preference for Information and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 263-286, May.
    13. Michèle Cohen & Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva, 2008. "Dynamic Decision Making when Risk Perception Depends on Past Experience," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 173-192, March.
    14. Trautmann, Stefan T. & Wakker, Peter P., 2010. "Process fairness and dynamic consistency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 187-189, December.
    15. Nathalie Etchart, 2002. "Adequate Moods for non-eu Decision Making in a Sequential Framework," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 1-28, February.
    16. Wlodek Rabinowicz, 1997. "On Seidenfeld‘s Criticism of Sophisticated Violations of the Independence Axiom 1," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 279-292, November.
    17. Eran Hanany & Peter Klibanoff, 2008. "Updating Ambiguity Averse Preferences," Discussion Papers 1468, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    18. Dennis C. Mueller, 2006. "Democracy, Rationality and Morality," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2006-15, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    19. Grant, S. & Polak, B. & Kajii, A., 1996. "Preference for Information," Papers 298, Australian National University - Department of Economics.
    20. Brian J. Cohen, 1996. "Is Expected Utility Theory Normative for Medical Decision Making?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 1-6, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:arerjl:59325. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nareaea.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.