IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeeman/v41y2001i1p70-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data

Author

Listed:
  • Swallow, Stephen K.
  • Opaluch, James J.
  • Weaver, Thomas F.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:41:y:2001:i:1:p:70-93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095-0696(00)91125-2
    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. Boyle, Kevin J., 1990. "Dichotomous-Choice, Contingent-Valuation Questions: Functional Form Is Important," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-7, October.
    2. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-8, October.
    3. Harris, Charles C. & Driver, B. L. & McLaughlin, William J., 1989. "Improving the contingent valuation method: A psychological perspective," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 213-229, November.
    4. Hanemann, W. Michael, . "Some Issues In Continuous - And Discrete - Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9.
    5. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    6. Johnston, Robert J. & Weaver, Thomas F. & Smith, Lynn A. & Swallow, Stephen K., 1995. "Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 56-69, April.
    7. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    8. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    9. Opaluch James J. & Swallow Stephen K. & Weaver Thomas & Wessells Christopher W. & Wichelns Dennis, 1993. "Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 41-59, January.
    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. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & Stephen K. Swallow, 1999. "Asymmetries in Ordered Strength of Preference Models: Implications of Focus Shift for Discrete-Choice Preference Estimation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(2), pages 295-310.
    13. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 229-236, October.
    14. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    15. Stephen K. Swallow & Thomas Weaver & James J. Opaluch & Thomas S. Michelman, 1994. "Heterogeneous Preferences and Aggregation in Environmental Policy Analysis: A Landfill Siting Case," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 431-443.
    16. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    17. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    18. Jeffrey L. Jordan & Abdelmoneim H. Elnagheeb, 1994. "Consequences of Using Different Question Formats in Contingent Valuation: A Monte Carlo Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 97-110.
    19. Kanninen Barbara J., 1993. "Design of Sequential Experiments for Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-11, July.
    20. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    21. MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-9, October.
    22. Li Chuan-Zhong & Mattsson Leif, 1995. "Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-269, March.
    23. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    24. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    25. Stephen K. Swallow & James J. Opaluch & Thomas F. Weaver, 1992. "Siting Noxious Facilities: An Approach That Integrates Technical, Economic, and Political Considerations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 283-301.
    26. 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.
    27. John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    28. Anna Alberini, 1995. "Testing Willingness-to-Pay Models of Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Survey Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 83-95.
    29. Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 1995. "Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 500-515.
    30. 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.
    31. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    32. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    33. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    34. Barbara J. Kanninen, 1993. "Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 138-146.
    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. Chhandita Das & Christopher M. Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2009. "Estimating Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 593-610, January.
    2. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    3. Huang, Albert Ying-Je & Liu, Ruey-Hua, 2008. "Learning for supplying as a motive to be the early adopter of a new energy technology: A study on the adoption of stationary fuel cells," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2143-2153, June.
    4. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Trine Kjær & Jørgen Lauridsen & Jan Sørensen, 2007. "Graded pairs comparison ‐ does strength of preference matter? Analysis of preferences for specialised nurse home visits for pain management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 513-529, May.
    6. Kipperberg, Gorm & Bond, Craig A. & Hoag, Dana L., 2008. "An Application of Mixed Logit Estimation in the Analysis of Producers’ Stated Preferences," Working Papers 108719, Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    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. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.
    6. Robert J. Johnston & RStephen K. Swallow & Dana Marie Bauer, 2002. "Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 481-500.
    7. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    8. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    9. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Chhandita Das & Christopher M. Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2009. "Estimating Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 593-610, January.
    11. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.
    12. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    13. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    14. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
    15. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown & Mark L. Plummer, 1999. "Valuing Multiple Programs to Improve Fish Populations," Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington 0042, Department of Economics at the University of Washington.
    16. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    17. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    19. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1998. "Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Paper CRENoS 199801, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    20. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.

    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:eee:jeeman:v:41:y:2001:i:1:p:70-93. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870 .

    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.