IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v8y1996i4p485-499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Bente Halvorsen

Abstract

This paper focuses on ordering effects in CVM surveys; how the expressed value of a particular good valued in a sequence of several goods depends on where in the sequence the good is valued. We use data from a Norwegian CVM survey focusing on WTP for a 50% reduction in air pollution from car traffic to test for the existence of ordering effects and to apply a test for internal consistency. We found considerable and significant ordering effects in our data, but were not able to reject the hypothesis of internal consistency. Based on our survey, we argue that ordering effects may be a result of rational choice. These effects are problematic if a sequential valuation procedure is applied to a simultaneous problem, and/or the respondents are given imperfect information about the decision problem. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Suggested Citation

  • Bente Halvorsen, 1996. "Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(4), pages 485-499, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:8:y:1996:i:4:p:485-499
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00357416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00357416
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00357416?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. Hurd, Michael, 1979. "Estimation in truncated samples when there is heteroscedasticity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2-3), pages 247-258.
    2. G.S. Maddala & Forrest D. Nelson, 1975. "Specification Errors in Limited Dependent Variable Models," NBER Working Papers 0096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    4. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-551, June.
    5. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    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. Eva Kougea & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "Air Quality Degradation: Can Economics Help in Measuring its Welfare Effects? A Review of Economic Valuation Studies," Chapters, in: Jose A. Orosa (ed.), Indoor and Outdoor Air Pollution, IntechOpen.
    2. Stithou, Mavra, 2009. "Respondent Certainty and Payment Vehicle Effect in Contingent Valuation: an Empirical Study for the Conservation of Two Endangered Species in Zakynthos Island, Greece," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2009-21, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    3. Ståle Navrud, 2001. "Valuing Health Impacts from Air Pollution in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(4), pages 305-329, December.
    4. Okuyama, Tadahiro, 2018. "Analysis of optimal timing of tourism demand recovery policies from natural disaster using the contingent behavior method," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-54.
    5. Kevin Boyle & Semra Özdemir, 2009. "Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 247-264, February.
    6. Dominika Parry Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2005. "Valuing Air Quality in Poland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(2), pages 131-163, February.
    7. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.
    8. Stewart, Jennifer M. & O'Shea, Eamon & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2002. "Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 585-599, July.
    9. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 417-436, December.
    10. Anne Rozan, 2001. "How to measure health costs induced by air pollution?," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 137(I), pages 103-116, March.
    11. Noboru Hidano & Takaaki Kato, 2008. "Determining variability of willingness to pay for Japan’s antiglobal-warming policies: a comparison of contingent valuation surveys," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(4), pages 259-281, December.
    12. Alexandra K. Shannon & Faraz Usmani & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Marc Jeuland, 2019. "The Price of Purity: Willingness to Pay for Air and Water Purification Technologies in Rajasthan, India," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1073-1100, August.
    13. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Nguyen Duc Kien & Nguyen H. D. My & Dang Thi Anh Thu & Ton That Canh Tri & Nghiem Hong Son & Thai Khanh Phong & Hoang Cong Tin & Nguyen Hoang Lan & Tran Binh Thang & Bui Dung The & Phung Tri Dung, 2023. "Valuation of a Heatwave Early Warning System for Mitigating Risks Associated with Heat-Related Illness in Central Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-21, October.
    16. Bente Halvorsen & Tiril Willumsen, 2004. "Willingness to pay for dental fear treatment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(4), pages 299-308, November.
    17. Anne ROZAN & Marc WILLINGER, 1999. "Does the knowledge of the origin of the health damage matter for WTP estimates?," Working Papers of BETA 9904, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    18. Bente Halvorsen & Tiril Willumsen, 2002. "Willingness to Pay for Dental Fear Treatment. Is Supplying Fear Treatment Socially Beneficial?," Discussion Papers 334, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    19. Meg Perry-Duxbury & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2019. "How to value safety in economic evaluations in health care? A review of applications in different sectors," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(7), pages 1041-1061, September.
    20. Julia Martin‐Ortega & M. Azahara Mesa‐Jurado & Julio Berbel, 2015. "Revisiting the Impact of Order Effects on Sensitivity to Scope: A Contingent Valuation of a Common‐Pool Resource," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 705-726, September.
    21. 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.
    22. Noboru Hidano & Takaaki Kato, 2008. "Determining variability of willingness to pay for Japan’s antiglobal-warming policies: a comparison of contingent valuation surveys," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(4), pages 259-281, December.
    23. María Xosé Vázquez & Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2006. "Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 403-417, April.
    24. Annemieke De Ridder & Diana De Graeve, 2005. "Order bias in estimates of willingness to pay for drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(2), pages 146-151, June.

    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. 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.
    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. Carson, Richard T., 1998. "Valuation of tropical rainforests: philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 15-29, January.
    5. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2003. "Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 59-72, January.
    6. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    8. Schulze, William D. & McClelland, Gary H. & Lazo, Jeffrey K. & Rowe, Robert D., 1998. "Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 163-178, June.
    9. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Frank, Julieta & Garcia, Philip & Irwin, Scott H., 2008. "To What Surprises Do Hog Futures Markets Respond?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 73-87, April.
    12. Cox, Thomas L. & Briggs, Hugh, 1989. "Heteroscedastic Tobit Models: The Household Demand for Fresh Potatoes Revisited," Staff Papers 200482, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    13. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    14. Edward L. Glaeser & Scott Duke Kominers & Michael Luca & Nikhil Naik, 2018. "Big Data And Big Cities: The Promises And Limitations Of Improved Measures Of Urban Life," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 114-137, January.
    15. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    16. Clemens, Michael A. & Pritchett, Lant, 2019. "The new economic case for migration restrictions: An assessment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 153-164.
    17. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    18. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    19. Pamela Campa & Lucija Muehlenbachs, 2024. "Addressing Environmental Justice through In-Kind Court Settlements," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 415-446, February.
    20. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.

    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:8:y:1996:i:4:p:485-499. 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.