IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/26-09.html

Do Any Differences in Estimated Recreation Benefits from Probability and Opt-in Samples Vary with Valuation Method?

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Whitehead
  • Tim Haab
  • Sherry L. Larkin
  • John B. Loomis
  • Sergio Alvarez
  • Andrew Ropicki

Abstract

Estimating recreation benefits from environmental events or regulatory actions often requires household survey data. Probability-based sampling is preferred but costly; opt-in panels cost less but their welfare estimates may be biased. This paper compares probability-based and opt-in samples using travel cost method (TCM) and contingent valuation method (CVM) estimates of recreation losses from the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill in northwest Florida. Opt-in estimates exceed probability-based estimates by 26% under TCM and by 20% to 32% under CVM. Restricting CVM "yes" responses to those respondents most certain they would pay narrows the gap, but it remains larger than the TCM gap. Key Words: contingent valuation method, opt-in panel data, probability-based panel data, travel cost method.

Suggested Citation

  • John C. Whitehead & Tim Haab & Sherry L. Larkin & John B. Loomis & Sergio Alvarez & Andrew Ropicki, 2026. "Do Any Differences in Estimated Recreation Benefits from Probability and Opt-in Samples Vary with Valuation Method?," Working Papers 26-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:26-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp2609.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    3. 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.
    4. Loomis, John B., 1997. "Panel Estimators To Combine Revealed And Stated Preference Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    6. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol & Weimer, David L., 2003. "The Advent of Internet Surveys for Political Research: A Comparison of Telephone and Internet Samples," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    8. John C. Whitehead & Andrew Ropicki & John Loomis & Sherry Larkin & Tim Haab & Sergio Alvarez, 2023. "Estimating the benefits to Florida households from avoiding another Gulf oil spill using the contingent valuation method: Internal validity tests with probability‐based and opt‐in samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 705-720, June.
    9. Kaitlynn Sandstrom‐Mistry & Frank Lupi & Hyunjung Kim & Joseph A. Herriges, 2023. "Comparing water quality valuation across probability and non‐probability samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 744-761, June.
    10. Jerrod Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2023. "Adjusting and Calibrating Elicited Values Based on Follow-up Certainty Questions: A Meta-analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(4), pages 919-946, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    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. Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.
    3. Beth Forys & Paul Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2026. "Estimating Recreation Benefits of Avoiding Blue Green Algae and Red Tide in South Florida," Working Papers 26-05, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    6. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.
    7. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Liu, Xuemin, 2008. "Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 328-335, December.
    8. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2003. "A Comparison Of Cheap Talk And Alternative Certainty Calibration Techniques In Contingent Valuation," Working Paper Series 14517, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    9. Loomis, John B., 2010. "Testing Construct Validity of River Recreation Use Values: A Comparison of Direct Elicitation of Use Values to Use Values Inferred Indirectly from WTP for Total Economic Value," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 60410, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C. & Provencher, Bill & Champ, Patricia A., 2009. "Accounting for Respondent Uncertainty to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," Staff Papers 92233, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    11. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Mart󹑺-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    12. Rex Labao & Herminia Francisco & Dieldre Harder & Florence Santos, 2008. "Do Colored Photographs Affect Willingness to Pay Responses for Endangered Species Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 251-264, June.
    13. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    14. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Poe, Gregory L. & Giraud, Kelly L. & Loomis, John B., 2001. "Simple Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions: Application to Internal and External Scope Tests in Contingent Valuation," Staff Papers 121130, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    16. 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.
    17. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    18. Henry-Osorio, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ronald C., 2012. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Modeling Binary Choices: Estimating Willingness to Pay for Recreation Site Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    20. John C. Whitehead & William P. Anderson, Jr & Dennis Guignet & Craig E. Landry & O. Ashton Morgan, 2024. "Sea-Level Rise, Drinking Water Quality and the Economic Value of Coastal Tourism in North Carolina," Working Papers 24-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:apl:wpaper:26-09. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.html .

    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.