IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v7y1996i2p149-162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Park
  • John Loomis

Abstract

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

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Park & John Loomis, 1996. "Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 149-162, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:7:y:1996:i:2:p:149-162
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00699289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00699289
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00699289?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    6. 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.
    7. Brown, Gardner M, Jr & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1984. "The Hedonic Travel Cost Method," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(3), pages 427-433, August.
    8. 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(2), pages 1-7, December.
    9. John P. Hoehn, 1991. "Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(2), pages 289-299.
    10. 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 715-719, November.
    11. Tsu-tan Fu & James E. Epperson & Joseph V. Terza & Stanley M. Fletcher, 1988. "Producer Attitudes Toward Peanut Market Alternatives: An Application of Multivariate Probit Joint Estimation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(4), pages 910-918.
    12. Smith, V. Kerry & Kaoru, Yoshiaki, 1986. "Modeling recreation demand within a random utility framework," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 395-399.
    13. 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.
    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. Mozumder, Pallab & Vásquez, William F. & Marathe, Achla, 2011. "Consumers' preference for renewable energy in the southwest USA," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1119-1126.
    2. Alberto Longo & David Hoyos & Anil Markandya, 2012. "Willingness to Pay for Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 119-140, January.
    3. Pallab Mozumder & Ryan Helton & Robert P. Berrens, 2009. "Provision of a Wildfire Risk Map: Informing Residents in the Wildland Urban Interface," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1588-1600, November.
    4. Alberto Longo & David Hoyos & Anil Markandya, 2015. "Sequence Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs Using the Contingent Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-35.
    5. John C. Whitehead, 2000. "“Anchoring and Shift in Multiple Bound Contingent Valuation,”," Working Papers 0004, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    6. Mary Riddel & John Loomis, 1998. "Joint Estimation of Multiple CVM Scenarios under a Double Bounded Questioning Format," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 77-98, July.
    7. Polinori, Paolo, 2019. "Wind energy deployment in wind farm aging context. Appraising an onshore wind farm enlargement project: A contingent valuation study in the Center of Italy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 206-220.

    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. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 291-296, March.
    2. Joseph Cooper, 1993. "A bioeconomic model for estimating the optimal level of deer and tag sales," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(6), pages 563-579, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2015. "The public’s value for developing ocean energy technology in the Republic of Korea: A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 432-439.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Bauer, Dana Marie & Swallow, Stephen K., 2000. "The Influence Of Spatial Land Use Patterns On Rural Amenity Values And Willingness To Pay For Growth Management: Evidence From A Contingent Choice Survey," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21766, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Is the Korean public willing to pay for a decentralized generation source? The case of natural gas-based combined heat and power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 125-131.
    10. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    11. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    12. 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.
    13. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.
    14. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    15. Henry-Osorio, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ronald C., 2012. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Modeling Binary Choices: Estimating Willingness to Pay for Recreation Site Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. So-Yeon Park & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2016. "The Economic Value of the National Meteorological Service in the Korean Household Sector: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-13, August.
    17. K. McConnell* & I. Strand & Sebastián Valdés, 1998. "Testing Temporal Reliability and Carry-over Effect: The Role of Correlated Responses in Test-retest Reliability Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(3), pages 357-374, October.
    18. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Kyung-Suk Chae, 2001. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Ozone Pollution Control Policy in Seoul: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 38(1), pages 49-60, January.
    19. Gonzalez, Matias & Leon, Carmelo J., 2003. "Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 159-169, June.
    20. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.

    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:7:y:1996:i:2:p:149-162. 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.