IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v32y2000i13p1647-1655.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the benefits of mobile mammographic screening units using the contingent valuation method

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Clarke

Abstract

The benefits of improving access to mammographic screening are estimated using a contingent valuation experiment conducted on 458 women in 19 rural Australian towns. The contingent valuation survey provides women with information on mammographic screening and uses a closed-ended format to elicit their willingness to pay for a visit of a mobile mammographic screening unit. Single and double-bounded versions of the discrete response contingent valuation method are employed in the estimation of willingness to pay. The double-bounded contingent valuation approach is shown to be biased due to respondents having a greater disposition to respond 'no' when the bid amount in the follow-up question is higher than the bid amount offered in the initial question. Several approaches to dealing with this bias are examined.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Clarke, 2000. "Valuing the benefits of mobile mammographic screening units using the contingent valuation method," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(13), pages 1647-1655.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:32:y:2000:i:13:p:1647-1655
    DOI: 10.1080/000368400420995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/000368400420995
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/000368400420995?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. 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.
    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. Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Stéphane Luchini, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Post-Print inserm-00636179, HAL.
    2. Christine A. Kennedy, 2002. "Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon‐induced lung cancer prevention," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 585-598, October.
    3. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    4. Kim, GwanSeon & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2012. "A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    6. Philip M. Clarke, 2002. "Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 117-127, March.
    7. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni & Anna Maria Pinna, 2010. "Public versus private demand for covering long-term care expenditures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(28), pages 3651-3668.
    8. Trey A. Baird & Davene R. Wright & Maria T. Britto & Ellen A. Lipstein & Andrew T. Trout & Shireen E. Hayatghaibi, 2023. "Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 579-591, November.
    9. Neil Powe & Kenneth Willis & Guy Garrod, 2006. "Difficulties in valuing street light improvement: trust, surprise and bound effects," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 371-381.
    10. Asfaw, Abay & Braun, Joachim von, 2004. "Can community health insurance schemes shield the poor against the downside health effects of economic reforms? The case of rural ethiopia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 97-108, October.
    11. Costa-Font, Joan, 2017. "“Institutionalization aversion” and the willingness to pay for home health care," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 62-69.

    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. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Aiew, Wipon & Woodward, Richard T., 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food: A Non Hypothetical Market Experiment," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24995, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    3. Fernando Alonso, 2002. "The benefits of building barrier-free: a contingent valuation of accessibility as an attribute of housing," European Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 25-44.
    4. Haab, Timothy C., 1998. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire: A Comment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 190-194, March.
    5. Marangon, Francesco & Visintin, Francesca, 2007. "Rural landscape valuation in a cross-border region," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 84.
    6. Sukharomana, Renu & Supalla, Raymond J., 1998. "Effect Of Risk Perception On Willingness To Pay For Improved Water Quality," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20869, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Barton, David N., 2002. "The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 147-164, August.
    8. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Seung-Jun Kwak & Tai-Yoo Kim, 2001. "Modelling willingness to pay responses from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys with zero observations," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 523-529.
    9. Timothy Haab, 1999. "Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(4), pages 443-461, December.
    10. Havas, Lisa & Ballweg, Julie & Penna, Chris & Race, Digby, 2015. "Power to change: Analysis of household participation in a renewable energy and energy efficiency programme in Central Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 325-333.
    11. Kulkarni, Atul P. & Kuchanur, Prakash H. & Satihal, Dayanand G & Zaidi, P.H. & Rahut, Dil B, 2013. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Stress-Resilient Maize Hybrids in Rain-fed Agro-Environment in Karnataka," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), June.
    12. Timothy C. Haab, "undated". "Indifference or Misspecification? The Distributional Impacts of Indifference on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 9607, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    13. Poor, Joan, 1999. "Water Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals: Welfare Measures for Chemigation Producers," Western Region Archives 321700, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    14. Riera Font, A., 2000. "Valoración económica de los atributos ambientales mediante el método del coste de viaje," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 14, pages 173-198, Abril.
    15. Emma J. Frew & David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme, 2003. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay: Comparing Closed-Ended with Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 150-159, March.
    16. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    17. Eulàlia Dalmau‐Matarrodona, 2001. "Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros. Estimating the determinants of individuals' willingness to pay for home care services in," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 101-118, March.
    18. Dominika Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2007. "Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 71-87, September.
    19. ORDOFA JARA, Gemechu & TESHOME GEBRETSADIK, Wubishet & TEMAM HAJIFATO, Nesru, 2021. "Households' willingness to pay for the conservation of Noug: a case study," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 24(2), October.

    More about this item

    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:v:32:y:2000:i:13:p:1647-1655. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.