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.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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), August.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    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.

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.