IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v78y2002i1p121-131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Roach
  • Kevin J. Boyle
  • Michael Welsh

Abstract

Multiple-bounded, contingent-valuation questions have been proposed as an alternative to single-bounded and double-bounded questions. While the effects of bid design on multiple- bounded responses have not been explored, findings of experimental effects in single- and double-bounded questions make this a logical area of inquiry. We explore two potential experimental effects in multiple-bounded questions. Respondents may simply express welfare estimates in the center of the bid list. Also, the range of bids may systematically influence welfare estimates. We find while respondents do not center their responses, the range of bids influences welfare estimates and responses to individual bids.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Roach & Kevin J. Boyle & Michael Welsh, 2002. "Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 121-131.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:78:y:2002:i:1:p:121-131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/78/1/121
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
    2. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum, 1997. "Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1495-1500.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    4. Kevin J. Boyle & Hugh F. MacDonald & Hsiang-tai Cheng & Daniel W. McCollum, 1998. "Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 49-64.
    5. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    6. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    7. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(02), December.
    8. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    9. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
    10. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    11. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    12. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
    13. Barbara J. Kanninen, 1993. "Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 138-146.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    2. Moore, Christopher C. & Holmes, Thomas P. & Bell, Kathleen P., 2011. "An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 35-52, January.
    3. Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P. & Parajuli, Shanta, 2009. "Broiler Producers’ Willingness To Pay To Manage Nutrient Pollution," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46825, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Ahtiainen, Heini & Artell, Janne & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Choosing a Functional Form for an International Benefit Transfer: Evidence from a Nine-country Valuation Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 104-113.
    5. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    6. repec:kap:enreec:v:68:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10640-016-0040-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    8. Edward B. Barbier & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Is the Income Elasticity of the Willingness to Pay for Pollution Control Constant?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 663-682, November.
    9. Boman, Mattias, 2009. "To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests - What scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 79-91, January.
    10. Parsons, George R. & Myers, Kelley, 2016. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: An application to an endangered shorebird species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 210-219.
    11. Soma Bhattacharya & Anna Alberini & Maureen Cropper, 2007. "The value of mortality risk reductions in Delhi, India," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 21-47, February.
    12. Simon Chege Kimenju & Hugo De Groote, 2008. "Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 35-46, January.
    13. Broberg, Thomas & Brännlund, Runar, 2008. "An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data--Certainty dependent payment card intervals," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 555-567, December.

    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:78:y:2002:i:1:p:121-131. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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.