IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v70y1994i1p111-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph C. Cooper

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph C. Cooper, 1994. "A Comparison of Approaches to Calculating Confidence Intervals for Benefit Measures from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 111-122.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:70:y:1994:i:1:p:111-122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

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

    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. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    2. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    3. Rebecca Moore & Richard C. Bishop & Bill Provencher & Patricia A. Champ, 2010. "Accounting for Respondent Uncertainty to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(3), pages 381-401, September.
    4. Skuras, Dimitris & Vakrou, Alexandra, 1999. "Willingness to pay for origin labelled products : a case study of Greek wine consumers," 67th Seminar, October 28-30, 1999, LeMans, France 241049, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    6. English, Donald B.K., 2000. "A Simple Procedure for Generating Confidence Intervals in Tourist Spending Profiles and Resulting Economic Impacts," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 30(1).
    7. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
    8. repec:eee:touman:v:32:y:2011:i:3:p:511-519 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    11. Keith, John E. & Fawson, Christopher & Johnson, Van, 1996. "Preservation or use A contingent valuation study of wilderness designation in Utah," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 207-214, September.
    12. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1998. "Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Paper CRENoS 199801, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    13. Timothy C. Haab, "undated". "A Utility Based Repeated Discrete Choice Model of Consumer Demand," Working Papers 9611, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    14. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Ulrike Lehr & Gerhard Wagenhals & Ursula Wolf, 2004. "Contingent Valuation of Mining Land Reclamation in East Germany," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 245/2004, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    15. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2003. "Willingness of Sri Lankan Farmers to pay for a Scheme to Conserve Elephants: An Empirical Analysis," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48954, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    16. Crutchfield, Stephen R. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Hellerstein, Daniel, 1997. "Benefits of Safer Drinking Water: The Value of Nitrate Reduction," Agricultural Economics Reports 34025, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non-Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow-Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122.
    18. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    19. Leslie Richardson & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2013. "Valuing Morbidity from Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparison of Revealed and Stated Preference Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 76-100.
    20. John Whitehead & Ju-Chin Huang & Glenn Blomquist & Richard Ready, 1998. "Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 107-116, January.
    21. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth Willis & Guy Garrod, 2001. "Estimating Benefits for Effective Enforcement of Speed Reduction from Dichotomous-Choice CV," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(4), pages 281-304, December.
    22. Ioanna Fanariotu & Dimitris Skuras, 2004. "The Contribution of Scenic Beauty Indicators in Estimating Environmental Welfare Measures: A Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 145-165, January.
    23. Andy Choi, 2009. "Willingness to pay: how stable are the estimates?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(4), pages 301-310, November.
    24. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.
    25. Claudy, Marius C. & Michelsen, Claus & O'Driscoll, Aidan, 2011. "The diffusion of microgeneration technologies - assessing the influence of perceived product characteristics on home owners' willingness to pay," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1459-1469, March.

    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: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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.