IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v78y2012icp123-131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents when correcting hypothetical bias: Case of endangered spotted seal in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Ju-Yeon
  • Mjelde, James W.
  • Kim, Tae-Kyun
  • Lee, Choong-Ki
  • Ahn, Kyung-Mo

Abstract

Two threads within the contingent valuation literature are potential biases created by the hypothetical nature of the method and defining the population to sample. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine these threads, namely examining how attempting to control for hypothetical bias interacts with how the population is defined. Results indicate controlling for hypothetical bias makes the two samples, residents of Baengnyeong Island (where the spotted seal is located) and the general South Korea population, more similar than if bias is not corrected. Without correcting for bias, for example, residents' willingness-to-pay for preservation of the seal is 33% higher than the general population; however, after controlling for hypothetical bias this percent decreases to 21%.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Ju-Yeon & Mjelde, James W. & Kim, Tae-Kyun & Lee, Choong-Ki & Ahn, Kyung-Mo, 2012. "Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents when correcting hypothetical bias: Case of endangered spotted seal in South Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 123-131.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:78:y:2012:i:c:p:123-131
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912001383
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. González-Sepúlveda, Juan Marcos & Loomis, John B., 2010. "Do CVM Welfare Estimates Suffer from On-Site Sampling Bias? A Comparison of On-Site and Household Visitor Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(03), pages 561-570, October.
    2. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1996. "The Importance of the Market Area Determination for Estimating Aggregate Benefits of Public Goods: Testing Differences in Resident and Nonresident Willingness to Pay," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(02), pages 161-170, October.
    3. Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2011. "Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 119-129, January.
    4. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    5. V. Kerry Smith, 1993. "Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-26.
    6. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2007. "Non Market Valuation in New Zealand:1974 through 2005," Working Papers in Economics 07/17, University of Waikato.
    7. Hanley, N D, 1989. " Valuing Non-market Goods Using Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 235-252.
    8. Heinz Welsch & Jan Kühling, 2009. "Using Happiness Data For Environmental Valuation: Issues And Applications," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 385-406, April.
    9. Lee, Choong-Ki & W. Mjelde, James, 2007. "Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: The case of the Korean DMZ," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 511-520, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & Randall S. Rosenberger, 2010. "Methods, Trends And Controversies In Contemporary Benefit Transfer," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 479-510, July.
    13. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    14. Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
    15. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    16. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1996. "The Importance Of The Market Area Determination For Estimating Aggregate Benefits Of Public Goods: Testing Differences In Resident And Nonresident Willingness To Pay," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(2), October.
    17. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    18. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    19. Ronald J. Sutherland & Richard G. Walsh, 1985. "Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 281-291.
    20. Gonzalez-Sepulveda, Juan Marcos & Loomis, John B., 2010. "Do CVM Welfare Estimates Suffer from On-Site Sampling Bias? A Comparison of On-Site and Household Visitor Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(3), October.
    21. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    22. Navrud, StAle & Mungatana, E. D., 1994. "Environmental valuation in developing countries: The recreational value of wildlife viewing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 135-151, November.
    23. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    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. repec:eee:ecoser:v:7:y:2014:i:c:p:66-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. O. Ashton Morgan & William L.Huth & Paul Hindsley, 2017. "Examining the Perceptions and Effects of Survey Consequentiality Across Population Subgroups," Working Papers 17-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:78:y:2012:i:c:p:123-131. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.