IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sin/wpaper/04-a008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A General Model of Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Contingent Valuation Surveys

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper develops a general model that addresses the starting point bias in the dichotomous choice evaluation data by incorporating both the anchoring effect and yea-saying bias. The model is applied to a contingent valuation study that evaluated the health benefits of air quality improvement in three major metropolitan areas in Taiwan. The empirical evidence shows a strong anchoring effect but a weak yea-saying bias. The results show a serious understated willingness to pay if the biases in anchoring and yea-saying are not controlled.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Lan Chien & Cliff J. Huang & Daigee Shaw, 2004. "A General Model of Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Contingent Valuation Surveys," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 04-A008, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Handle: RePEc:sin:wpaper:04-a008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.sinica.edu.tw/upload/file/04-a008.2008090210101755.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Becker, Gary S, 1974. "A Theory of Social Interactions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(6), pages 1063-1093, Nov.-Dec..
    2. Silverman, Jonathan & Klock, Mark, 1989. "The behavior of respondents in contingent valuation: Evidence on starting bids," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 51-60.
    3. Hadker, Nandini & Sharma, Sudhir & David, Ashish & Muraleedharan, T. R., 1997. "Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a Contingent Valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 105-122, May.
    4. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    5. Edna T. Loehman & Sehoon Park & David Boldt, 1994. "Willingness to Pay for Gains and Losses in Visibility and Health," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 478-498.
    6. Richard O‘Conor & Magnus Johannesson & Per-Olov Johansson, 1999. "Stated Preferences, Real Behaviour and Anchoring: Some Empirical Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 235-248, March.
    7. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    8. Craig Bullock & Jim Kay, 1997. "Preservation and Change in the Upland Landscape: The Public Benefits of Grazing Management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 315-334.
    9. 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.
    10. Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-1458, December.
    11. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    12. 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.
    13. Lee, Lung-Fei & Tyler, William G., 1978. "The stochastic frontier production function and average efficiency : An empirical analysis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 385-389, April.
    14. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    15. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
    16. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July.
    17. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    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. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    2. Ho-Young Kim & So-Yeon Park & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2016. "Public Acceptability of Introducing a Biogas Mandate in Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Kang, Heechan & Haab, Timothy C. & Interis, Matthew G., 2013. "Identifying inconsistent responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 396-411.
    4. Aprahamian, Frederic & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stephane, 2008. "Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 12-20, January.
    5. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch, 2011. "Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Observing Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM," Working Papers 201124, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    6. Liao, Shu-Yi & Tseng, Wei-Chun & Chen, Chi-Chung, 2010. "Eliciting public preference for nuclear energy against the backdrop of global warming," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7054-7069, November.
    7. Bechtold, Kai-Brit & Abdulai, Awudu, 2012. "Willingness-To-Pay for Functional Dairy Products and the Influence of Starting Point Bias: Empirical Evidence for Germany," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124776, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Saengsupavanich, Cherdvong & Seenprachawong, Udomsak & Gallardo, Wenresti G. & Shivakoti, Ganesh P., 2008. "Port-induced erosion prediction and valuation of a local recreational beach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 93-103, August.
    9. repec:spr:eujhec:v:18:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-016-0825-y is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Bechtold, Kai-Brit & Abdulai, Awudu, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Measure Consumers’ Preferences for Functional Dairy Products in Germany: Are Willingness-To-Pay Estimates Affected by Starting Point Bias?," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 135073, Agricultural Economics Society.
    11. 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.
    12. Yamazaki, Satoshi & Rust, Steven & Jennings, Sarah & Lyle, Jeremy & Frijlink, Sven, 2013. "Valuing recreational fishing in Tasmania and assessment of response bias in contingent valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), June.
    13. Sun, Chuanwang & Yuan, Xiang & Yao, Xin, 2016. "Social acceptance towards the air pollution in China: Evidence from public's willingness to pay for smog mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 313-324.
    14. repec:eee:rensus:v:81:y:2018:i:p1:p:242-249 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Parsons, George R. & Myers, Kelley, 2016. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: An application to an endangered shorebird species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 210-219.
    16. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Coggins, Jay S., 2008. "Environmental risk and welfare valuation under imperfect information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 150-169, May.
    17. Romstad, Eirik, 2012. "Truthful revelation in nonmarket valuation," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126724, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    19. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    20. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    21. Dekker, T. & Koster, P.R. & Brouwer, R., 2012. "Changing with the tide: Semi-parametric estimation of preference dynamics," Serie Research Memoranda 0005, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    22. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    23. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Adachi, Kenji, 2011. "A framework for estimating willingness-to-pay to avoid endogenous environmental risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 130-154, January.
    24. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.

    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:sin:wpaper:04-a008. 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: (HsiaoyunLiu). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/sinictw.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.