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

Does Don't Know Mean No? Analysis of 'Don't Know' Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions

Author Info

Listed author(s):
  • Peter A. Groothuis
  • John C. Whitehead

Abstract

The 'don't know' response option in contingent valuation dichotomous choice questions is analysed using data from both willingness to pay and willingness to accept studies. An empirical analysis is conducted to determine whether respondents are stating a response similar to yes or no responses or a middle response. It is found that don't know responses are similar to no responses in the willingness to pay study. In the willingness to accept study, it is found that the 'don't know' responses are similar to a middle response. It is further suggested that researchers consider calculating ambivalence bounds when a don't know response is a middle response.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Download Info

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.ecu.edu/econ/wp/98/ecu9814.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by East Carolina University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 9814.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation:
Handle: RePEc:wop:eacaec:9814
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Brewster A-427, 10th Street, Greenville, NC 27858

Phone: (252) 328-6006
Fax: (252) 328-6743
Web page: http://www.econ.ecu.edu/wp/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

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. Milon, J. Walter, 1989. "Contingent valuation experiments for strategic behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 293-308, November.
  2. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Kristrom, Bengt & Gerdtham, Ulf-G., 1993. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- further results," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 95-108, April.
  3. 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.
  4. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
  5. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
  6. Peter A. Groothuis & George Van Houtven & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a Lulu: the Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(3), pages 231-249, May.
  7. Opaluch, James J. & Segerson, Kathleen, 1989. "Rational Roots Of "Irrational" Behavior: New Theories Of Economic Decision-Making," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 18(2), October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

as
in new window


Cited by:

  1. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, July.
  2. Beynon, Malcolm J & Jones, Paul & Pickernell, David & Packham, Gary, 2016. "A NCaRBS analysis of SME intended innovation: Learning about the Don’t Knows," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PA), pages 97-112.
  3. Groothuis, Peter A. & Cockerill, Kristan & Mohr, Tanga McDaniel, 2015. "Water does not flow up hill: determinants of willingness to pay for water conservation measures in the mountains of western North Carolina," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 88-95.
  4. Uehleke, Reinhard, 2016. "The role of question format for the support for national climate change mitigation policies in Germany and the determinants of WTP," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 148-156.
  5. Gillespie, Jeffrey & Lewis, Darius, 2008. "Processor Willingness to Adopt a Crawfish Peeling Machine: An Application of Technology Adoption under Uncertainty," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(01), pages 369-383, April.
  6. Groothuis, Peter A. & Groothuis, Jana D. & Whitehead, John C., 2008. "Green vs. green: Measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1545-1550, April.
  7. Kim, Sooil & Haab, Timothy C., 2003. "Temporal Insensitivity Of Pvwtp And Implied Discount Rates In Cvm," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21921, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  8. Kim, Seon-Ae & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), September.
  9. Groothuis, Peter A. & Whitehead, John C., 2009. "The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(02), pages 271-280, October.
  10. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
  11. Broberg, Thomas & Brännlund, Runar, 2008. "An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data--Certainty dependent payment card intervals," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 555-567, December.
  12. Gadaud, Juliette & Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2010. "Amenity values and payment schemes for free recreation services from non-industrial private forest properties: A French case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 297-311, December.

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

Access and download statistics

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:eacaec:9814. 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: (Thomas Krichel)

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.