IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v74y1998i2p240-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Valuation by the Method of Paired Comparison, with Emphasis on Evaluation of the Transitivity Axiom

Author

Listed:
  • George L. Peterson
  • Thomas C. Brown

Abstract

The paired comparison (PC) method is used to investigate reliability, transitivity, and decision time for binary choices among goods and sums of money. The PC method reveals inconsistent choices and yields individual preference order over the set of items being compared. The data reported support the transitivity assumption and demonstrate high reliability for individual preference order. The paper also discusses using the PC method to obtain conservative median and mean estimates of willingness to accept compensation for public and private goods. The PC method may prove useful for valuing public goods, and warrants further study.

Suggested Citation

  • George L. Peterson & Thomas C. Brown, 1998. "Economic Valuation by the Method of Paired Comparison, with Emphasis on Evaluation of the Transitivity Axiom," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 240-261.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:74:y:1998:i:2:p:240-261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147054
    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. Aric P. Shafran, 2014. "Equivalent Option Price With Supply Uncertainty," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(S1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Loomis, John B., 2002. "Applying A Method Of Paired Comparisons To Measure Economic Values For Multiple Goods Sets," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Carol Mansfield & George L. Van Houtven & Joel Huber, 2002. "Compensating for Public Harms: Why Public Goods Are Preferred to Money," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 368-389.
    4. Arvin B. Vista & Randall S. Rosenberger & Alan R. Collins, 2009. "If You Provide It, Will They Read It? Response Time Effects in a Choice Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 365-377, September.
    5. Chilton, Susan M. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George, 2006. "The relative value of farm animal welfare," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 353-363, September.
    6. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    7. Kjartan Sælensminde, 2001. "Inconsistent choices in Stated Choice data;Use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 269-296, August.
    8. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    9. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Clarke, Andrea & Brown, Thomas C., 2003. "Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 63-76, February.
    10. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    11. Ratana Chuenpagdee & Jack L. Knetsch & Thomas C. Brown, 2001. "Environmental Damage Schedules: Community Judgments of Importance and Assessments of Losses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 1-11.
    12. Jean-Paul Doignon & Aleksandar Pekeč & Michel Regenwetter, 2004. "The repeated insertion model for rankings: Missing link between two subset choice models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 33-54, March.
    13. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    14. Brown, Thomas C. & Nannini, Dawn & Gorter, Robert B. & Bell, Paul A. & Peterson, George L., 2002. "Judged seriousness of environmental losses: reliability and cause of loss," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 479-491, September.
    15. Kannika Thampanishvong, 2013. "Determinants of Flash Flood Evacuation Choices and Assessment of Preferences for Flash Flood Warning Channels: The Case of Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013034, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    16. Konrad Kułakowski, 2015. "A heuristic rating estimation algorithm for the pairwise comparisons method," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(1), pages 187-203, March.
    17. Joseph Luomba & Ratana Chuenpagdee & Andrew M. Song, 2016. "A Bottom-Up Understanding of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing in Lake Victoria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-14, October.
    18. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    19. Robert W. Kling & Charles F. Revier & Karin Sable, 2004. "Estimating the Public Good Value of Preserving a Local Historic Landmark: The Role of Non-substitutability and Citizen Information," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(10), pages 2025-2041, September.
    20. Mahasuweerachai, Phumsith & Pangjai, Siwarut, 2016. "Scope Insensitivity in Child's Health Risk Reduction: A Comparison of Damage Schedule and Choice Experiment Methods," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235577, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Konrad Kułakowski & Katarzyna Grobler-Dębska & Jarosław Wąs, 2015. "Heuristic rating estimation: geometric approach," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 529-543, July.
    22. Pradiptyo, Rimawan & Sahadewo, Gumilang Aryo, 2012. "On The Complexity of Eliminating Fuel Subsidy in Indonesia; A Behavioral Approach," MPRA Paper 40045, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    23. Euston Quah & Edward Choa & K. C. Tan, 2006. "Use of damage schedules in environmental valuation: The case of urban Singapore," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(13), pages 1501-1512.
    24. Brown, Thomas C. & Kingsley, David & Peterson, George L. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Clarke, Andrea & Birjulin, Andrej, 2008. "Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 1595-1606, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:74:y:1998:i:2:p:240-261. 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.