Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation
In this paper, the results of empirical studies that applied two widely used methods - numerical certainty scale (NCS) and polychotmous choice (PC) - for estimating preference uncertainty adjusted willingness to pay (WTP) in contingent valuation (CV), are summarized. For this review, a number of conclusions are reached. First, there is a lack of consensus about which method is more appropriate for measuring preference uncertainty. Second, although preference uncertainty information has been found useful in detecting the incidence of hypothetical bias in CV studies, a consensus about a standard certainty threshold (or treatment mechanism) at which hypothetical behaviour converges to real behaviour is yet to emerge. Third, insufficient empirical evidence exists about the causal relationship between preference uncertainty scores and the theoretically expected explanatory variables. Finally, the preference uncertainty adjusted PC and NCS models fail to provide a consistent and more efficient welfare estimate compared to the conventional dichotomous choice certainty model.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:67:y:2008:i:3:p:345-351. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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.