IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v11y1998i1p107-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions

Author

Listed:
  • John Whitehead
  • Ju-Chin Huang
  • Glenn Blomquist
  • Richard Ready

Abstract

In this note we conduct construct validity tests for dichotomous choice (DC) and polychotomous choice (PC) contingent valuation questions. Contrary to previous results, we find that DC and PC estimates of willingness to pay are theoretically valid, convergent valid, and similar in terms of statistical precision. Similar to previous results, PC respondents are less sensitive to information than DC respondents. We conclude that DC and PC valuation questions are construct valid for this study. Sequential PC valuation questions could be used in studies where obtaining information about the certainty or intensity of respondent preferences would be useful. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Suggested Citation

  • John Whitehead & Ju-Chin Huang & Glenn Blomquist & Richard Ready, 1998. "Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 107-116, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:11:y:1998:i:1:p:107-116
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008231430184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008231430184
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008231430184?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Kristrom, Bengt & Gerdtham, Ulf-G., 1993. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- further results," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 95-108, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
    4. Bengt Kriström, 1993. "Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 63-71, February.
    5. Paul M. Jakus, 1994. "Averting Behavior in the Presence of Public Spillovers: Household Control of Nuisance Pests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(3), pages 273-285.
    6. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop, 1988. "Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 20-28.
    7. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    8. Joseph C. Cooper, 1994. "A Comparison of Approaches to Calculating Confidence Intervals for Benefit Measures from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 111-122.
    9. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
    10. Boyle Kevin J. & Desvousges William H. & Johnson F. Reed & Dunford Richard W. & Hudson Sara P., 1994. "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 64-83, July.
    11. John C. Whitehead, 1995. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Comparative Statics and Interpretation of Contingent Valuation Results," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(2), pages 207-215.
    12. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C. & Hoban Thomas J. & Clifford William B., 1995. "Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users, and Non-users," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 238-251, September.
    16. 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.
    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. Dale Whittington & Stefano Pagiola, 2012. "Using Contingent Valuation in the Design of Payments for Environmental Services Mechanisms: A Review and Assessment," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 27(2), pages 261-287, August.
    2. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 417-436, December.
    3. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    4. 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.
    5. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    6. Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Bohara, Alok K. & Silva, Carol L., 2002. "Further Investigation of Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Fair Share, Time of Contribution, and Respondent Uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 144-168, July.
    7. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    8. Beilei Cai & Trudy Cameron & Geoffrey Gerdes, 2010. "Distributional Preferences and the Incidence of Costs and Benefits in Climate Change Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 429-458, August.
    9. Akter, Sonia & Brouwer, Roy & Brander, Luke & van Beukering, Pieter, 2009. "Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1858-1863, April.
    10. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Boman, Mattias, 2009. "To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests - What scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 79-91, January.
    12. Kim, Seon-Ae & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-18.
    13. Artem Korzhenevych & Charles Kofi Owusu, 2021. "Renewable Minigrid Electrification in Off-Grid Rural Ghana: Exploring Households Willingness to Pay," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.

    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. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    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. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Certainty calibration in contingent valuation - exploring the within-difference between dichotomous choice and open-ended answers as a certainty measure," Working Papers 2009:1, Örebro University, School of Business.
    7. Leslie Richardson & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2013. "Valuing Morbidity from Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparison of Revealed and Stated Preference Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 76-100.
    8. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    9. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    10. Svedsater, Henrik, 2007. "Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(1), pages 1-17.
    11. Whittington, Dale & Hua Wang, 2000. "Willingness to pay for air quality improvements in Sofia, Bulgaria," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2280, The World Bank.
    12. Shaikh, Sabina L. & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2003. "Using Contingent Valuation With Respondent Uncertainty To Estimate The Costs Of Climate Change Programs: An Application To Canadian Landowners," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21906, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    14. Kniivila, Matleena, 2006. "Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 530-539, October.
    15. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 1997. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Should Revealed and Stated Preference Data Be Combined?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 240-255, November.
    16. Sun, Lili & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2005. "Fuzzy Logic and Preference Uncertainty in Non-market Valuation," Working Papers 37021, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    17. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    18. Ju-Chin Huang & Timothy C. Haab & John C. Whitehead, "undated". "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Can Revealed and Stated Preferences Data be Combined?," Working Papers 9704, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    19. Lockwood, Michael & Carberry, David, 1999. "Stated preference surveys of remnant native vegetation conservation," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 123831, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Shaikh, Sabina L., 2005. "Does Uncertainty Matter: An Application to the Willingness to Pay to Reduce Swimming Bans in Chicago," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19134, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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:kap:enreec:v:11:y:1998:i:1:p:107-116. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.