IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/1999.10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bias and Efficiency of Single vs Double Bound Models for Contingent Valuation Studies.A Monte Carlo Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Pinuccia Calia

    (Department of Economics, University of Cagliari)

  • Elisabetta Strazzera

    (DRES and CRENoS, University of Cagliari)

Abstract

The Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Method can be used either in the single or double bound formulation. The former is easier to implement, while the latter is known to be more efficient. We analyse the bias of the ML estimates produced by either model, and the gain in efficiency associated to the double bound model, in different experimental settings. We find that there are no relevant differences in point estimates given by the two models, even for small sample size, and no estimator can be said to be less biased than the other. The greater efficiency of the double bound is confirmed, although differences tend to reduce by increasing the sample size. Provided that a reliable pre-test is conducted, and the sample size is large, use of the single rather than the double bound model is warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 1999. "Bias and Efficiency of Single vs Double Bound Models for Contingent Valuation Studies.A Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Papers 1999.10, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:1999.10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL1999/NDL1999-010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph C. Cooper, 1994. "A Comparison of Approaches to Calculating Confidence Intervals for Benefit Measures from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 111-122.
    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. "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. 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.
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    6. Jeffrey L. Jordan & Abdelmoneim H. Elnagheeb, 1994. "Consequences of Using Different Question Formats in Contingent Valuation: A Monte Carlo Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 97-110.
    7. 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.
    8. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    9. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    10. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, May.
    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. M. Musumeci, 2000. "Innovazione tecnologica e beni culturali. Uno studio sulla situazione della Sicilia," Working Paper CRENoS 200008, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    2. LR. Keller & E. Strazzera, 2000. "Examining predictive models among discounting models," Working Paper CRENoS 200005, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    3. Christine A. Kennedy, 2002. "Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon-induced lung cancer prevention," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 585-598.
    4. R. Carcangiu & G. Sistu & S. Usai, 1999. "Struttura socio-economica dei comuni della Sardegna. Suggerimenti da un'analisi cluster," Working Paper CRENoS 199903, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    5. C. Antonelli & R. Marchionatti & S. Usai, 2000. "Productivity and External Knowledge: The Italian Case," Working Paper CRENoS 200009, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    6. Arega, Tiruwork & Tadesse, Tewodros, 2017. "Household willingness to pay for green electricity in urban and peri-urban Tigray, northern Ethiopia: Determinants and welfare effects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 292-300.
    7. R. Naylor, 2001. "Industry profits and market size under bilateral oligopoly," Working Paper CRENoS 200108, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    8. R. Naylor, 2001. "Firm profits and the number of firms under unionised oligopoly," Working Paper CRENoS 200109, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Contingent valuation; Single bound estimator; Double bound estimator; Bias; Statistical efficiency;

    JEL classification:

    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:fem:femwpa:1999.10. 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: (barbara racah). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.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.