IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Realism Versus Statistical Efficiency: A Note on Contingent Valuation with Follow-up Queries

  • Ricardo Faria


  • Raul Matsuhita


  • Jorge Nogueira


  • Benjamin Tabak


This paper shows that we can improve the statistical efficiency of dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys by asking a second open question (anchored open-ended approach) instead of the traditional double-bounded approach. The former approach is shown to be more efficient than conventional single and double-bounded approaches using a Monte Carlo experiment, even when we allow for strategic behavior from respondents such as protest votes and yea-saying behavior. Copyright International Atlantic Economic Society 2007

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:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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.

Article provided by International Atlantic Economic Society in its journal Atlantic Economic Journal.

Volume (Year): 35 (2007)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
Pages: 451-462

in new window

Handle: RePEc:kap:atlecj:v:35:y:2007:i:4:p:451-462
Contact details of provider: Postal: Suite 650, International Tower, 229 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 965-1555
Fax: (404) 965-1556
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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. John C. Whitehead, 2000. "“Anchoring and Shift in Multiple Bound Contingent Valuation,”," Working Papers 0004, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Staff General Research Papers 1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(02), December.
  8. Bengt Kriström, 1993. "Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 63-71, February.
  9. Ian Langford & Ian Bateman & Hugh Langford, 1996. "A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(3), pages 197-211, April.
  10. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
  11. Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-58, December.
  12. 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.
  13. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
  14. Riccardo Scarpa & Ian Bateman, 2000. "Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 299-311.
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:kap:atlecj:v:35:y:2007:i:4:p:451-462. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

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.