IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v3y1993i1p63-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions

Author

Listed:
  • Bengt Kriström

Abstract

This paper explores two commonly used methods to elicit an individual's willingness to pay (WTP) for a public good in contingent valuation studies. Currently, the most preferred method is the “take-it-or-leave” valuation question, or discrete valuation question (DVQ), where the respondent accepts or rejects a suggested cost for the good. The traditional method, the continuous valuation question (CVQ), simply asks an individual to state his WTP for the suggested change in the provision of a public good like cleaner air. We introduce a simple way to compare the results from these two methods. We also test the anchoring behavior suggested in the psychological literature on choice under uncertainty. The results do not support the anchoring hypothesis, but suggest the hypothesis that people perceive the two tested valuation questions differently. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:3:y:1993:i:1:p:63-71
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00338320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00338320
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00338320?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. Bengt Kristrom, 1990. "A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 135-139.
    2. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    3. Christine Seller & John R. Stoll & Jean-Paul Chavas, 1985. "Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 156-175.
    4. Walsh, Richard G. & Johnson, Donn M. & McKean, John R., 1989. "Issues In Nonmarket Valuation And Policy Application: A Retrospective Glance," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, 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. Anabela Botelho & Lígia Costa Pinto & Patricia Sousa, 2013. "Valuing wind farms’ environmental impacts by geographical distance: A contingent valuation study in Portugal," NIMA Working Papers 52, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    2. Elina Lampi & Matilda Orth, 2009. "Who Visits the Museums? A Comparison between Stated Preferences and Observed Effects of Entrance Fees," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 85-102, February.
    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. 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.
    5. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    6. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
    7. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2007. "Willingness to Pay among Swedish Households to Avoid Power Outages: A Random Parameter Tobit Model Approach," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 75-90.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Köhlin, Gunnar & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2004. "Contingent valuation of community plantations in Ethiopia: a look into value elicitation formats and intra-household preference variations," Working Papers in Economics 151, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.
    10. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2006. "Do Experience and Cheap Talk influence Willingness to Pay in an Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Survey?," Working Papers in Economics 190, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Brown, Katrina & Adger, W. Neil & Tompkins, Emma & Bacon, Peter & Shim, David & Young, Kathy, 2001. "Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 417-434, June.
    12. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    13. Jorge Araña & Carmelo León, 2013. "Can Defaults Save the Climate? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Carbon Offsetting Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 613-626, April.
    14. Franz Hackl & Gerald Pruckner, 1999. "On the gap between payment card and closed-ended CVM-answers," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 733-742.
    15. Himayatullah Khan, 2009. "Willingness to pay and demand elasticities for two national parks: empirical evidence from two surveys in Pakistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 293-305, April.
    16. Ricardo Faria & Raul Matsuhita & Jorge Nogueira & Benjamin Tabak, 2007. "Realism Versus Statistical Efficiency: A Note on Contingent Valuation with Follow-up Queries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(4), pages 451-462, December.
    17. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2001. "Willingness to pay for reduction in air pollution: a multilevel analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(1), pages 17-27, March.
    18. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    19. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter & Akay, Alpaslan, 2011. "The effect of power outages and cheap talk on willingness to pay to reduce outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 790-798, September.
    20. Lunander, Anders, 1998. "Inducing Incentives to Understate and to Overstate Willingness to Pay within the Open-Ended and the Dichotomous-Choice Elicitation Formats: An Experimental Study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 88-102, January.
    21. Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    22. Bett, R.C. & Bett, H.K. & Kahi, A.K. & Peters, K.J., 2009. "Evaluation and effectiveness of breeding and production services for dairy goat farmers in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2451-2460, June.
    23. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
    24. 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.

    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. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    2. John P. Hoehn & Douglas J. Krieger, 2000. "An Economic Analysis of Water and Wastewater Investments in Cairo, Egypt," Evaluation Review, , vol. 24(6), pages 579-608, December.
    3. Bergland, Olvar & Kim, Seung-Woo & McLeod, Don & Romstad, Eirik, 1989. "Estimation of Optimal Congestion Levels: Deer Hunting in Western Oregon," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270485, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    6. Boyle, Kevin J., 1990. "Dichotomous-Choice, Contingent-Valuation Questions: Functional Form Is Important," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-7, October.
    7. Frykblom, Peter, 1997. "Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 275-287, November.
    8. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Buckland, Steve, 1995. "Valuing Biodiversity Losses Due To Acid Deposition: A Contingent Valuation Study Of Uncertain Environmental Gains," Discussion Papers in Ecological Economics 140539, University of Stirling, Department of Economics.
    9. G. D. Garrod & K. G. Willis, 1995. "Valuing The Benefits Of The South Downs Environmentally Sensitive Area," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 160-173, May.
    10. Galina Williams, 2015. "Households Willingness to Pay for the Emissions Reduction Policy, Queensland, Australia," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    11. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, "undated". "Intuitive Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 9609, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    12. Bateman, Ian J. & Brouwer, Roy, 2006. "Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: A novel scope-sensitivity test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 199-214, August.
    13. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    14. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    15. Walter Santagata & Giovanni Signorello, 2000. "Contingent Valuation of a Cultural Public Good and Policy Design: The Case of ``Napoli Musei Aperti''," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 24(3), pages 181-204, August.
    16. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    17. Bergstrom, John C. & Stoll, John R., 1989. "Application Of Experimentatal Economics Concepts And Precepts To Cvm Field Survey Procedures," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, July.
    18. Liao, Chih-Chien & Houston, Jack E., Jr. & Bergstrom, John C., 1989. "Recreation Demand Factor Indices: A Principal Components Analysis," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270497, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Catherine Heyes & Anthony Heyes, 1999. "Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 124-139, January.

    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:3:y:1993:i:1:p:63-71. 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.