Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses
Hanemann's utility difference model for the dichotomous choice contingent valuation method is modified to account for interrelationships between responses to a set of contingent valuation questions. A nonlinear seemingly unrelated regression model is presented to jointly estimate the probit models and to derive WTP from the CV responses. The model is used to test and impose restrictions derived from economic theory on the utility difference model. Mean WTP estimates for three different types of changes in the quality of California deer hunting were uniformly lower for the joint response probit model compared to a set of independent probit models. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 7 (1996)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263|
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.:
- Chesher, Andrew, 1985. "Score tests for zero covariances in recursive linear models for grouped or censored data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 291-305, June.
- Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006.
Handbook of Environmental Economics,
in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936
- 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.
- Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
- Grogger, Jeffrey, 1990. "A simple test for exogeneity in probit, logit, and poisson regression models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 329-332, August.
- Morey, Edward R. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Rowe, Robert D., 1991. "A discrete-choice model of recreational participation, site choice, and activity valuation when complete trip data are not available," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 181-201, March.
- Keith, John E. & Lyon, Kenneth S., 1985. "Valuing Wildlife Management: A Utah Deer Herd," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 10(02), December.
- Brown, Gardner M, Jr & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1984. "The Hedonic Travel Cost Method," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(3), pages 427-33, August.
- 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.
- Guilkey, David K. & Murphy, James L., 1993. "Estimation and testing in the random effects probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 301-317, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:7:y:1996:i:2:p:149-162. 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)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.