IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v20y2001i2p147-163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of Sample Selection Model to Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Seung-Hoon Yoo

    ()

  • Hee-Jong Yang

Abstract

Modeling households' behavior with the data from a contingentvaluation (CV) survey is often complicated by samplenon-response, which can cause non-response bias and sampleselection bias, leading to inconsistent parameter estimates and adistorted mean willingness-to-pay estimate. This paper reportsthe results of empirical tests for both biases using householdsurvey data in which the double-bounded dichotomous choice CVquestion involved the benefit of a tap water quality improvementpolicy in Korea. No non-response bias, but sample selection bias,is detected in the sample. To correct for sample selection bias,a sample selection model is employed. The authors also discusshow failure to correct for bias may distort aggregate benefitestimates. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Suggested Citation

  • Seung-Hoon Yoo & Hee-Jong Yang, 2001. "Application of Sample Selection Model to Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(2), pages 147-163, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:20:y:2001:i:2:p:147-163 DOI: 10.1023/A:1012625929384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1012625929384
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, April.
    3. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", pages 129-137.
    6. 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.
    7. Eklöf, Jan & Karlsson, Sune, 1997. "Testing and Correcting for Sample Selection Bias in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 171, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 23 Jun 1999.
    8. Ian Langford & Ian Bateman & Hugh Langford, 1996. "A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(3), pages 197-211, April.
    9. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-597, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Steven F. Edwards & Glen D. Anderson, 1987. "Overlooked Biases in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Some Considerations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(2), pages 168-178.
    12. McConnell, K. E., 1990. "Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 19-34, January.
    13. Whitehead, John C. & Groothuis, Peter A. & Blomquist, Glenn C., 1993. "Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation : Analysis of a combination phone/mail survey," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 215-220.
    14. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    15. Vella, F, 1992. "Simple Tests for Sample Selection Bias in Censored and Discrete Choice Models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 413-421, Oct.-Dec..
    16. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1984. "Tobit models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 3-61.
    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. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, James Michael & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(01), April.
    2. Rihar, Miha & Hrovatin, Nevenka & Zoric, Jelena, 2015. "Household valuation of smart-home functionalities in Slovenia," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 42-53.
    3. Liu, Jin-Tan & Tsou, Meng-Wen & Hammitt, James K., 2009. "Willingness to pay for weight-control treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 211-218, July.
    4. Yoo, Seung-Hoon & Lim, Hea-Jin & Kwak, Seung-Jun, 2009. "Estimating the residential demand function for natural gas in Seoul with correction for sample selection bias," Applied Energy, Elsevier, pages 460-465.
    5. Lyssenko, Nikita & Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2009. "`Been there done that': Disentangling option value effects from user heterogeneity when valuing natural resources with a use component," MPRA Paper 21976, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Apr 2010.
    6. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "Improving Willingness to Pay Estimates for Quality Improvements through Joint Estimation with Quality Perceptions," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 100-111, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Garcia, Serge & Harou, Patrice & Montagné, Claire & Stenger, Anne, 2009. "Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 59-78, January.
    9. Owusu, Victor & Owusu, Michael Anifori, 2010. "Measuring Market Potential for Fresh Organic Fruit and Vegetable in Ghana," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 95955, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE);Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA).
    10. Arega, Tiruwork & Tadesse, Tewodros, 2017. "Household willingness to pay for green electricity in urban and peri-urban Tigray, northern Ethiopia: Determinants and welfare effects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 292-300.
    11. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    12. Gustafsson-Wright, Emily & Asfaw, Abay & van der Gaag, Jacques, 2009. "Willingness to pay for health insurance: An analysis of the potential market for new low-cost health insurance products in Namibia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1351-1359, November.

    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:20:y:2001:i:2:p:147-163. 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 (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.