IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v30y2005i1p23-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Respondent Experience/Knowledge in the Elicitation of Contingent Values: An Investigation of Convergent Validity, Procedural Invariance and Reliability

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Mccollum
  • Kevin Boyle

Abstract

Tests of convergent validity and procedural invariance were used to investigate whether individuals lacking direct experience with a commodity can provide valid responses to contingent-valuation questions eliciting ex post use values. Convergent validity between samples with and without experience was shown to hold for dichotomous-choice responses, but not for open-ended responses. Copyright Springer 2005

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Mccollum & Kevin Boyle, 2005. "The Effect of Respondent Experience/Knowledge in the Elicitation of Contingent Values: An Investigation of Convergent Validity, Procedural Invariance and Reliability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(1), pages 23-33, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:30:y:2005:i:1:p:23-33
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-004-0758-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-004-0758-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-004-0758-2?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ju-Chin Huang & V. Kerry Smith, 1998. "Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 186-202.
    2. Richard C. Bishop, 1982. "Option Value: An Exposition and Extension," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(1), pages 1-15.
    3. Mario F. Teisl & Kevin J. Boyle & Daniel W. McCollum & Stephen D. Reiling, 1995. "Test-Retest Reliability of Contingent Valuation with Independent Sample Pretest and Posttest Control Groups," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(3), pages 613-619.
    4. M. K. Haener & P. C. Boxall & W. L. Adamowicz, 2001. "Modeling Recreation Site Choice: Do Hypothetical Choices Reflect Actual Behavior?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 629-642.
    5. Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 80-99, July.
    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. Tabi, Andrea & del Saz-Salazar, Salvador, 2015. "Environmental damage evaluation in a willingness-to-accept scenario: A latent-class approach based on familiarity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 280-288.
    2. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Pullis, Genevieve, 2012. "Does On-site Experience Affect Responses to Stated Preference Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124991, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Michael Hanemann & Jon Krosnick & Lisanne Wichgers & Jeffrey Wooldridge & Stephanie Lampron & Daniel Schneider & Eric M. Shaeffer & Trevor Tompson & Penny Visser, 2025. "Ben Franklin’s Whistle, Cost Expectations, and the Choice of Valuation Format," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(5), pages 1375-1406, May.
    4. Dominika Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2007. "Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 71-87, September.
    5. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    6. Jacopo Bonan & Philippe LeMay-Boucher & Michel Tenikue, 2014. "Households' Willingness to Pay for Health Microinsurance and its Impact on Actual Take-up: Results from a Field Experiment in Senegal," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(10), pages 1445-1462, November.
    7. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Mette Lundsby Jensen & Trine Kjaer, 2014. "Framing The Willingness‐To‐Pay Question: Impact On Response Patterns And Mean Willingness To Pay," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 550-563, May.
    8. 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.

    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. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Soliño, Mario & Prada, Albino & Vázquez, María X., 2010. "Designing a forest-energy policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): A contingent valuation application," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 217-233, August.
    4. Dominika Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2007. "Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 71-87, September.
    5. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    7. Klaus Moeltner & David F. Layton, 2002. "A Censored Random Coefficients Model For Pooled Survey Data With Application To The Estimation Of Power Outage Costs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 552-561, August.
    8. Dmitriy Volinskiy & Wiktor Adamowicz & Michele Veeman, 2011. "Predicting versus testing: a conditional cross‐forecasting accuracy measure for hypothetical bias," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 429-450, July.
    9. R. M. Wasantha Rathnayake, "undated". "Estimating Demand for Turtle Conservation at the Rekawa Sanctuary in Sri Lanka," Working papers 92, The South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics.
    10. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    11. Coggins, Jay S. & Ramezani, Cyrus A., 1998. "An Arbitrage-Free Approach to Quasi-Option Value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 103-125, March.
    12. Smith, V. Kerry, 1990. "Environmental Risk Perception and Valuation: Conventional versus Prospective Reference Theory," 1990 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Vancouver, Canada 270887, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    14. Kim, GwanSeon & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2012. "A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12, August.
    15. Pope, C. Arden III, 1989. "Alternative Opportunities for Allocating the Public Rangeland Resource," WAEA/ WFEA Conference Archive (1929-1995) 244844, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    17. Roberts, Roland K. & Douglas, Peggy V. & Park, William M., 1991. "Estimating External Costs Of Municipal Landfill Siting Through Contingent Valuation Analysis: A Case Study," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Miguel Ángel Tobarra-González, 2015. "A new recoding method for treating protest responses in contingent valuation studies using travel cost data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1479-1489, August.
    19. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    20. Birol, Ekin & Kontoleon, Andreas & Smale, Melinda, 2006. "Combining revealed and stated preference methods to assess the private value of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian home gardens:," EPTD discussion papers 156, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    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:30:y:2005:i:1:p:23-33. 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.