IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

What’s it worth? Exploring value uncertainty using interval questions in Contingent Valuation

Listed author(s):
  • Nick Hanley
  • Bengt Kristrom

In this paper we explore the idea that people only know the value they place on a given environmental change as a range, rather than as a singleton. We use the payment ladder design of contingent valuation, and take as a case study the value of coastal water quality improvements in Scotland. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, Tobit analysis and a modified Turnbull algorithm are used to explore the data. We find that most people state their values as a range, and investigate empirically the determinants of this range. The paper concludes with some thoughts concerning possible links between value ranges, context-dependence and uncertainty.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_22253_en.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow in its series Working Papers with number 2002_10.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation:
Handle: RePEc:gla:glaewp:2002_10
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Adam Smith Building, Glasgow G12 8RT

Phone: 0141 330 4618
Fax: 0141 330 4940
Web page: http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/business/research/

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Rauli Svento, 1993. "Some notes on trichotomous choice discrete valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(6), pages 533-543, December.
  2. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
  3. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
  4. Mark Yuying An & Roberto Ayala, 1996. "Nonparametric Estimation of a Survivor Function with Across- Interval-Censored Data," Econometrics 9611003, EconWPA.
  5. Nick Hanley & David Bell & Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 2003. "Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(3), pages 273-285, March.
  6. S Georgiou & I H Langford & I J Bateman & R K Turner, 1998. "Determinants of Individuals' Willingness to Pay for Perceived Reductions in Environmental Health Risks: A Case Study of Bathing Water Quality," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(4), pages 577-594, April.
  7. 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.
  8. Richard C. Ready & Ståle Navrud & RW. Richard Dubourg, 2001. "How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 315-326.
  9. Robin Gregory & James Flynn & Stephen M. Johnson & Theresa A. Satterfield & Paul Slovic & Robert Wagner, 1997. "Decision-Pathway Surveys: A Tool for Resource Managers," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 240-254.
  10. Dubourg, W R & Jones-Lee, M W & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(256), pages 681-702, November.
  11. 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.
  12. 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)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gla:glaewp:2002_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: (Jeanette Findlay)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.