IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Dichotomous-choice contingent valuation with 'dont know' responses and misreporting

  • Kelvin Balcombe

    (Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, Reading, UK)

  • Iain Fraser

    (School of Economics, University of Kent, UK)

A new approach is presented that simultaneously deals with Misreporting and Don't Know (DK) responses within a dichotomous-choice contingent valuation framework. Utilising a modification of the standard Bayesian Probit framework, a Gibbs with Metropolis-Hastings algorithm is used to estimate the posterior densities for the parameters of interest. Several model specifications are applied to two contingent valuation datasets: one on wolf management plans, and one on the US Fee Demonstration Program. We find that DKs are more likely to be from people who would be predicted to have positive utility for the bid. Therefore, a DK is more likely to be a YES than a NO. We also find evidence of misreporting, primarily in favour of the NO option. The inclusion of DK responses has an unpredictable impact on willingness-to-pay estimates, since it impacts differently on the results for the two datasets we examine. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/jae.1109
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://qed.econ.queensu.ca:80/jae/2009-v24.7/
File Function: Supporting data files and programs
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Journal of Applied Econometrics.

Volume (Year): 24 (2009)
Issue (Month): 7 ()
Pages: 1137-1152

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:jae:japmet:v:24:y:2009:i:7:p:1137-1152
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0883-7252/

Order Information: Web: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jcatalog/subscribe.jsp?issn=0883-7252 Email:


References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Kopp, Raymond & Smith, V. Kerry & Mitchell, Robert & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul & Hanemann, W. Michael & Krosnick, Jon & Carson, Richard, 1995. "Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation," Discussion Papers dp-96-05, Resources For the Future.
  2. Steven B. Caudill & Franklin G. Mixon, 2005. "Analysing Misleading Discrete Responses: A Logit Model Based on Misclassified Data," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 67(1), pages 105-113, 02.
  3. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
  4. Haener, Michel K. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1998. "Analysis Of "Don'T Know" Response To Referendum Contingent Valuation Questions," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(2), October.
  5. Meyerhoff, Jurgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2006. "Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 583-594, June.
  6. Loomis, John & Ekstrand, Earl, 1998. "Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 29-41, October.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Steven Caudill & Peter Groothuis, 2004. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to Don’t Know Responses in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 04-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  10. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
  11. 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.
  12. Arana, Jorge E. & Leon, Carmelo J., 2005. "Flexible mixture distribution modeling of dichotomous choice contingent valuation with heterogenity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 170-188, July.
  13. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
  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. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
  16. Roberto LeÛn & Carmelo J. LeÛn, 2003. "Single or double bounded contingent valuation? A Bayesian test," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 50(2), pages 174-188, 05.
  17. K. Balcombe & A. Bailey & A. Chalak & I. Fraser, 2007. "Bayesian Estimation of Willingness-to-pay Where Respondents Mis-report Their Preferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 69(3), pages 413-438, 06.
  18. Hausman, J. A. & Abrevaya, Jason & Scott-Morton, F. M., 1998. "Misclassification of the dependent variable in a discrete-response setting," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 239-269, September.
  19. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jae:japmet:v:24:y:2009:i:7:p:1137-1152. 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)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.