IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare09/47938.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A cognitive psychological approach of analyzing preference uncertainty in contingent valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Akter, Sonia
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

The sources of preference uncertainty in contingent valuation (CV) studies have rarely been investigated from a theoretical standpoint. This paper proposes a holistic theoretical framework of preference uncertainty that combines microeconomic theory with the theories of cognitive psychology. Empirical testing of the proposed theoretical model was carried out in Australia in the context of a national ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)’ to be introduced in 2010. Two separate ordered probit models for a certainty score associated with CV ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ responses were estimated. The results of the estimated regression models provide evidence supporting the hypotheses drawn from the theoretical model.

Suggested Citation

  • Akter, Sonia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "A cognitive psychological approach of analyzing preference uncertainty in contingent valuation," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47938, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:47938
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/47938
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Loomis, John & Ekstrand, Earl, 1998. "Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 29-41, October.
    3. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kristrom, Bengt & Li, Chuan-Zhong, 1996. "Nonmarket Valuation under Preference Uncertainty: Econometric Models and Estimation," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt5p04d9f1, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    4. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    5. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    6. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    7. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    8. Plott, Charles R., 1993. "Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes," Working Papers 862, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    9. Li Chuan-Zhong & Mattsson Leif, 1995. "Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-269, March.
    10. Akter, Sonia & Bennett, Jeff & Akhter, Sanzida, 2008. "Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 345-351, October.
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Contingent valuation; preference uncertainty; cognitive uncertainty; climate change; Australia;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aare09:47938. 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/aaresea.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.