IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A Comparison of Approaches to Calculating Confidence Intervals for Benefit Measures from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys

  • Joseph C. Cooper

This paper compares the performance of four approaches to calculating confidence intervals around dichotomous choice contingent valuation method (DC CVM) benefit estimates. The performance of the approaches is compared using Monte Carlo simulation techniques for the two most common specifications for the welfare estimate. The results indicate that all four methods tended to perform well on average but the methods differed in the frequency with which they performed well. The results indicate the best choice depends on the sample size, on the distribution of the welfare estimate, and on the choice of functional form for the welfare estimate.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146445
Download Restriction: A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 70 (1994)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 111-122

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:70:y:1994:i:1:p:111-122
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:70:y:1994:i:1:p:111-122. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.