IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v7y1996i3p197-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Ian Langford
  • Ian Bateman
  • Hugh Langford

Abstract

The use of dichotomous choice (DC) questions in the elicitation of willingness to pay (WTP) in contingent valuation studies is common practice at the present time. Recent research has shown that double-bounded DC questions provide statistically superior results to single-bounded questions, given an appropriate sampling design. This paper uses a relatively new multilevel modelling technique to analyze a triple-bounded DC design, which in addition includes an initial non-monetary question on whether an individual accepts, in principle, a WTP some unspecified amount. The theoretical basis of the multilevel model used is described, and some of the possibilities of this potentially powerful and versatile technique are discussed. The practical operation of the multilevel model is demonstrated using data from a contingent valuation study conducted in the Norfolk Broads, England, an internationally important wetland resource. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:7:y:1996:i:3:p:197-211
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00782145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00782145
    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. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
    2. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Barbara J. Kanninen, 1993. "Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 138-146.
    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. Ian Langford* & Areti Kontogianni & Mihalis Skourtos & Stavros Georgiou & Ian Bateman, 1998. "Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data: Willingness To Pay For Conservation of Monk Seals," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 443-456, December.
    2. 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.
    3. John C. Whitehead & William B. Clifford & Thomas J. Hoban, 2000. "“WTP for Research and Extension Programs: Divergent Validity of Contingent Valuation with Single and Multiple Bound Valuation Questions,”," Working Papers 0002, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    4. Saayman, Melville & Krugell, Waldo F. & Saayman, Andrea, 2016. "Willingness to pay: Who are the cheap talkers?," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 96-111.
    5. John C. Whitehead, 2000. "“Anchoring and Shift in Multiple Bound Contingent Valuation,”," Working Papers 0004, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    6. Norman Henderson & Ian Langford, 1998. "Cross-Disciplinary Evidence for Hyperbolic Social Discount Rates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(11-Part-1), pages 1493-1500, November.
    7. 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.
    8. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    9. Owusu-Amankwah, Georgette, 2018. "Willingness of Rural and Peri-urban Women Smallholder Farmers to Participate in Home-grown School Feeding Farming Contracts," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266714, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Chung, Yi-Shih & Chiou, Yu-Chiun, 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for a bus fare reform: A contingent valuation approach with multiple bound dichotomous choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 289-304.
    13. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Dupont, Diane P. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2006. "Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method: distinguishing strategic behaviour from the anchoring heuristic," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21104, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. Léon, 2006. "Modelling contingent valuation iterated elicitation data with an MCMC approach," Hacienda Pública Española, IEF, vol. 177(2), pages 83-105, April.
    15. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.

    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:3:p:197-211. 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.