IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v60y2009i1p154-170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Christie
  • Christopher D. Azevedo

Abstract

"Choice experiments (CEs) are a relatively new approach to valuing environmental resources. Initial tests of the validity of the approach have either compared benefit estimates generated using CEs with those estimated using contingent valuation (CV) or used more sophisticated hypothesis tests of parameter equality. Although useful, existing tests have been restricted to testing consistency based on a single policy scenario (standard CV). We argue that, although these tests are informative, they fail to take full advantage of the richness of CE data. In particular, CE data allow for the calculation of benefit estimates over a range of policy scenarios (i.e. attribute combinations). A similar range of benefit estimates may be generated by pooling scenarios in a repeated CV study. In this paper, we explore this relationship between CV and CEs by conducting validity tests between a CE model and a repeated CV model over a range of three levels of improved water quality at Clear Lake, IA, USA. Evidence from this test suggests that the CE and CV data are consistent." Copyright (c) 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation (c) 2008 The Agricultural Economics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Christie & Christopher D. Azevedo, 2009. "Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 154-170.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:60:y:2009:i:1:p:154-170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2008.00178.x
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blamey, Russell K. & Gordon, Jenny & Chapman, Ross, 1999. "Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(3), September.
    2. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Madden, Paul, 1991. "A Generalization of Hicksian q Substitutes and Complements with Application to Demand Rationing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(5), pages 1497-1508, September.
    5. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    6. Catherine L. Kling & Richard J. Sexton, 1990. "Bootstrapping in Applied Welfare Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 406-418.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    9. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    10. Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh & Patricia A. Champ, 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 255-267.
    11. 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 715-719, November.
    12. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15.
    13. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    14. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    15. John Crooker & Joseph Herriges, 2004. "Parametric and Semi-Nonparametric Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay in the Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(4), pages 451-480, 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


    Cited by:

    1. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    2. José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    3. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second-Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North-east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624.
    4. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    5. Christopher Moore & Daniel Phaneuf & Walter Thurman, 2011. "A Bayesian Bioeconometric Model of Invasive Species Control: The Case of the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 1-26, September.
    6. repec:spr:envpol:v:20:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10018-017-0191-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. José Miguel Sánchez U., 2013. "Contingent valuation and choice experiments applied to the Sierra Nevada National Park in Venezuela," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 38(35), pages 57-100, January-j.
    8. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

    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:bla:jageco:v:60:y:2009:i:1:p:154-170. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.