IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21335.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bias and Efficiency of Uniform Bid Design in Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Sooil

Abstract

While contingent valuation (CV) methods have experienced growing popularity for estimating the willingness to pay for nonmarket goods and services, optimal bid designs for CV that provide guidance in bid point placement often render themselves impractical by relying on pretest or prior information about the true distribution for willingness to pay. We investigate the use of a practical alternative to existing optimal or robust bid designs called the uniform design. Uniform design randomly draws bid points from a predetermined uniform distribution. Analytics and simulations show that the uniform design has higher low-bound of relative efficiency at 84 percent of D-optimum than a robust design. Simulations also demonstrate that uniform design outperforms other optimal designs when initial information about true parameters is poor and even outperforms robust designs when the true values of parameters are known.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Sooil, 2006. "Bias and Efficiency of Uniform Bid Design in Contingent Valuation," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21335, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/21335
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    2. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Lewbel, Arthur & McFadden, Daniel & Linton, Oliver, 2011. "Estimating features of a distribution from binomial data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 170-188, June.
    5. Boyle, Kevin J. & Welsh, Michael P. & Bishop, Richard C., 1988. "Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: comment," MPRA Paper 31237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 1997. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Should Revealed and Stated Preference Data Be Combined?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 240-255, November.
    7. 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.
    8. T.A. Cameron & D.D. Huppert, 1988. ""Referendum" Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values," UCLA Economics Working Papers 519, UCLA Department of Economics.
    9. Nyquist, Hans, 1992. "Optimal Designs of Discrete Response Experiments in Contingent Valuation Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(3), pages 559-563, August.
    10. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang, 1998. "Part-Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:ags:aaea06:21335. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.