IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cns/cnscwp/200502.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach

Author

Listed:
  • M. Genius
  • E. Strazzera

Abstract

A Monte Carlo analysis is conducted to assess the validity of the bivariate modeling approach for detection and correction of different forms of elicitation effects in Double Bound Contingent Valuation data. Alternative univariate and bivariate models are applied to several simulated data sets, each one characterized by a specific elicitation effect, and their performance is assessed using standard selection criteria. The bivariate models include the standard Bivariate Probit model, and an alternative specification, based on the Copula approach to multivariate modeling, which is shown to be useful in cases where the hypothesis of normality of the joint distribution is not supported by the data. It is found that the bivariate approach can effectively correct elicitation effects while maintaining an adequate level of efficiency in the estimation of the parameters of interest.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Genius & E. Strazzera, 2005. "Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach," Working Paper CRENoS 200502, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
  • Handle: RePEc:cns:cnscwp:200502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://crenos.unica.it/crenos/node/221
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://crenos.unica.it/crenos/sites/default/files/wp/05-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    2. Kenneth E. Train., 1995. "Simulation Methods for Probit and Related Models Based on Convenient Error Partitioning," Economics Working Papers 95-237, University of California at Berkeley.
    3. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    4. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 173-210.
    5. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius, 2004. "The Copula Approach to Sample Selection Modelling: An Application to the Recreational Value of Forests," Working Papers 2004.73, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    9. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    10. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 181-210.
    11. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    12. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, September.
    13. Lung-Fei Lee, 1982. "Some Approaches to the Correction of Selectivity Bias," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 355-372.
    14. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 173-210.
    15. Donald M. McLeod & Olvar Bergland, 1999. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Using the Double-Bounded Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Format: A Test for Validity and Precision in a Bayesian Framework," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 115-125.
    16. Ruud, Paul A, 1983. "Sufficient Conditions for the Consistency of Maximum Likelihood Estimation Despite Misspecifications of Distribution in Multinomial Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(1), pages 225-228, January.
    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. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    2. Evans, Mary F. & Poulos, Christine & Kerry Smith, V., 2011. "Who counts in evaluating the effects of air pollution policies on households? Non-market valuation in the presence of dependencies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 65-79, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    double bound; elicitation effects; bivariate models; probit; joe copula;

    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:cns:cnscwp:200502. 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: (Antonello Pau). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/crenoit.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.