IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/44y2012i15p1911-1930.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador

Author

Listed:
  • Nikita Lyssenko
  • Roberto Martínez-Espiñeira

Abstract

In this article we investigate the issue of respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation studies while estimating the willingness to pay for a whale conservation program off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador. We use data from a phone survey administered to a sample ( N = 614) of adult Canadians, proposing a policy consisting of subsidizing and enforcing the use of acoustic devices that would reduce the likelihood that whales become entangled in fishing nets. A follow-up question asked respondents how certain they were about their answer to the main dichotomous-choice question, which allows us to investigate how the treatment of uncertainty affects value measures. A mean willingness to pay of about $81/year per respondent is estimated when accounting for the degree of certainty with which respondents expressed their willingness to pay. We also analyse payment vehicle effects using a split-sample approach whereby some respondents were asked a dichotomous-choice question about a tax contribution while others were asked about a voluntary donation instead.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Martínez-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:44:y:2012:i:15:p:1911-1930
    DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2011.556590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00036846.2011.556590
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. 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.
    2. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2007. "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 183-194, September.
    3. Loomis, John & Ekstrand, Earl, 1998. "Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 29-41, October.
    4. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    5. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
    6. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    7. Patrick Royston, 2004. "Multiple imputation of missing values," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(3), pages 227-241, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Bohara, Alok K. & Silva, Carol L., 2002. "Further Investigation of Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Fair Share, Time of Contribution, and Respondent Uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 144-168, July.
    10. Patrick Royston, 2005. "Multiple imputation of missing values: update," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(2), pages 188-201, June.
    11. Patrick Royston, 2005. "Multiple imputation of missing values: Update of ice," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(4), pages 527-536, December.
    12. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    13. Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
    14. Jeong-In Chang & Seung-Hoon Yoo & Seung-Jun Kwak, 2007. "An investigation of preference uncertainty in the contingent valuation study," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(9), pages 691-695.
    15. Crocker, Thomas D. & Shogren, Jason F. & Turner, Paul R., 1998. "Incomplete beliefs and nonmarket valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 139-162, June.
    16. Karl C. Samples & John A. Dixon & KMarcia M. Gowen, 1986. "Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 306-312.
    17. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    18. Richard C. Ready & Ståle Navrud & RW. Richard Dubourg, 2001. "How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 315-326.
    19. Loomis, John & Yorizane, Shizuka & Larson, Douglas, 2000. "Testing Significance of Multi-Destination and Multi-Purpose Trip Effects in a Travel Cost Method Demand Model for Whale Watching Trips," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(02), pages 183-191, October.
    20. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    21. Loomis, John B. & Yorizane, Shizuka & Larson, Douglas M., 2000. "Testing Significance Of Multi-Destination And Multi-Purpose Trip Effects In A Travel Cost Method Demand Model For Whale Watching Trips," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 29(2), October.
    22. P. Wilner Jeanty, 2007. "Constructing Krinsky and Robb Confidence Interval for Mean and Median WTP Using Stata," North American Stata Users' Group Meetings 2007 8, Stata Users Group, revised 30 Aug 2007.
    23. Li Chuan-Zhong & Mattsson Leif, 1995. "Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-269, March.
    24. Akter, Sonia & Bennett, Jeff & Akhter, Sanzida, 2008. "Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 345-351, October.
    25. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    26. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    30. Erwin Bulte & G. van Kooten, 1999. "Marginal Valuation of Charismatic Species: Implications for Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 119-130, July.
    31. 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.
    32. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    33. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    34. 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.
    35. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    36. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Emina Krcmar & Erwin H. Bulte, 2001. "Preference Uncertainty in Non-Market Valuation: A Fuzzy Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 487-500.
    37. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
    38. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    39. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    40. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    41. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
    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. Lyssenko, Nikita & Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2009. "`Been there done that': Disentangling option value effects from user heterogeneity when valuing natural resources with a use component," MPRA Paper 21976, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Apr 2010.
    2. Voltaire, Louinord & Pirrone, Claudio & Bailly, Denis, 2013. "Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 76-85.
    3. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & Lyssenko, Nikita, 2011. "Correcting for the endogeneity of pro-environment behavioral choices in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1435-1439, June.
    4. Schwoerer, Tobias & Knowler, Duncan & Garcia-Martinez, Salvador, 2016. "The value of whale watching to local communities in Baja, Mexico: A case study using applied economic rent theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 90-101.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:applec:44:y:2012:i:15:p:1911-1930. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.