IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v62y2019i4p611-625.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Convergent validity between willingness to pay elicitation methods: an application to Grand Canyon whitewater boaters

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Neher
  • Lucas Bair
  • John Duffield
  • David Patterson
  • Katherine Neher

Abstract

We directly compare trip willingness to pay (WTP) values between dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DCCV) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) stated preference surveys of private party Grand Canyon whitewater boaters. The consistency of DCCV and DCE estimates is debated in the literature, and this study contributes to the body of work comparing the methods. Comparisons were made of mean WTP estimates for four hypothetical Colorado River flow-level scenarios. Boaters were found to most highly value mid-range flows, with very low and very high flows eliciting lower WTP estimates across both DCE and DCCV surveys. Mean WTP precision was estimated through simulation. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two methods at three of the four hypothetical flow levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Neher & Lucas Bair & John Duffield & David Patterson & Katherine Neher, 2019. "Convergent validity between willingness to pay elicitation methods: an application to Grand Canyon whitewater boaters," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(4), pages 611-625, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:62:y:2019:i:4:p:611-625
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2018.1435411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09640568.2018.1435411
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640568.2018.1435411?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.

    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:jenpmg:v:62:y:2019:i:4:p:611-625. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    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/CJEP20 .

    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.