IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v72y1996i3p397-411.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Richard C. Ready
  • Jean C. Buzby
  • Dayuan Hu

Abstract

In a split-sample contingent valuation study of willingness to pay (WTP) for food safety improvements, the dichotomous choice (DC) elicitation method consistently generated much larger estimates of WTP than did a continuous method. Little or none of these differences was due to bias introduced by the statistical techniques used with the DC data. Most or all of the difference was due to differences in respondent behavior. In addition, the continuous WTP responses showed a significant scope effect, while the DC responses did not. The observed difference in behavior may be attributable in part to yea-saying by DC respondents.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:3:p:397-411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147205
    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.

    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:72:y:1996:i:3:p:397-411. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.