IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cla/uclawp/404.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-Ended" Contingent Valuation Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Trudy Ann Cameron

    (UCLA)

  • Michelle D. James

    (UCLA)

Abstract

"Closed-ended contingent valuation" surveys can be very useful in the evaluation of nonmarket resources. Respondents merely state whether they would accept or reject a hypothetical threshold amount, either as payment for giving up access to the resource or as a fee for its use. The authors develop a maximum likelihood procedure which exploits the variation in the threshold values to allow direct and separate point estimates of regression-like slope coefficients and error standard deviations (without truncation bias). Their illustration uses data from a survey of recreational fisherman to examine factors which influence individuals' willingness-to-pay. Copyright 1987 by MIT Press.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Trudy Ann Cameron & Michelle D. James, 1986. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-Ended" Contingent Valuation Surveys," UCLA Economics Working Papers 404, UCLA Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:cla:uclawp:404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.ucla.edu/workingpapers/wp404.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cicchetti, Charles J & Fisher, Anthony C & Smith, V Kerry, 1976. "An Econometric Evaluation of a Generalized Consumer Surplus Measure: The Mineral King Controversy," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(6), pages 1259-1276, November.
    2. Burt, Oscar R & Brewer, Durward, 1971. "Estimation of Net Social Benefits from Outdoor Recreation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 813-827, September.
    3. Lerman, Steven R. & Kern, Clifford R., 1983. "Hedonic theory, bid rents, and willingness-to-pay: Some extensions of Ellickson's results," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 358-363, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Trudy Ann Cameron & Michelle D. James, 1986. "The Determinants of Value for a Recreational Fishing Day: Estimates from a Contingent Valuation Survey," UCLA Economics Working Papers 405, UCLA Department of Economics.
    6. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trudy Ann Cameron & Michelle D. James, 1986. "Utilizing "Closed-Ended" Contingent Valuation Survey DAta for Preliminary Demand Assessments," UCLA Economics Working Papers 415, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Bhattacharyya, Aditi & Kutlu, Levent & Sickles, Robin C., 2018. "Pricing Inputs and Outputs: Market prices versus shadow prices, market power, and welfare analysis," Working Papers 18-009, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    3. Asafu-Adjaye, J. & Boxall, P.C., 1989. "An Economic Assesment of the Value of Wildlife Resourves in Alberta," Project Report Series 232071, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    4. Lucinio Júdez & de Rosario Andrés & Carlos Pérez Hugalde & Elvira Urzainqui & Miguel Ibáñez, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 48, pages 37-60.
    5. Lucinio Júdez & Rosario de Andrés & Carlos Pérez Hugalde & Elvira Urzainqui & Miguel Ibáñez, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Post-Print hal-01200908, HAL.
    6. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    7. Trudy Ann Cameron*, 1987. "Valuing Public Goods Using Referendum Data: Estimation Assuming A Logistic Error Distribution," UCLA Economics Working Papers 430, UCLA Department of Economics.
    8. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    9. Bishop, Richard & Heberlein, Thomas A. & Welsh, Michael P. & Baumgartner, Robert M., 1984. "Does Contingent Valuation Work? Results Of The Sandhill Experiment," 1984 Annual Meeting, August 5-8, Ithaca, New York 278963, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. François Bonnieux & Philippe Le Goffe & Dominique Vermersch, 1995. "La méthode d'évaluation contingente : application à la qualité des eaux littorales," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 117(1), pages 89-106.
    11. Garcia, Cristina, 1982. "Problems With The Treatment Of Time In The Travel Cost Method," Staff Papers 13408, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    12. Júdez, Lucinio & de Andrés, Rosario & Pérez Hugalde, Carlos & Urzainqui, Elvira & Ibáñez, Miguel, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 48.
    13. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Göran Karlsson, 1996. "Outcome measurement in economic evaluation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(4), pages 279-296, July.
    14. Cooper, Joseph C., 1995. "The Application of Nonmarket Valuation Techniques to Agricultural Issues," Staff Reports 333359, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    15. David Worden & Getu Hailu & Kate Jones & Yu Na Lee, 2022. "The effects of bundling on livestock producers' valuations of environmentally friendly traits available through genomic selection," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 263-286, December.
    16. Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, W. George & Hunter, Ruth F. & Tully, Mark A. & Kee, Frank, 2015. "Demand response to improved walking infrastructure: A study into the economics of walking and health behaviour change," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 107-116.
    17. Ready, Richard & Fisher, Ann & Guignet, Dennis & Stedman, Richard & Wang, Junchao, 2006. "A pilot test of a new stated preference valuation method: Continuous attribute-based stated choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 247-255, September.
    18. Talwar, Shagorika, 1995. "An evaluation of statistical efficiency and bias trade-off involved with the use of follow-up questioning in the contingent valuation of environmental amenities," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000018160, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    19. 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.
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.

    More about this item

    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:cla:uclawp:404. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: David K. Levine (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.ucla.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.