IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/117836.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dichotomous choice contingent valuation probability distributions

Author

Listed:
  • Kerr, Geoffrey N.

Abstract

Parametric distributions applied to dichotomous choice contingent valuation data invoke assumptions about the distribution of willingness to pay that may contravene economic theory. This article develops and applies distributions that allow the shape of bid distributions to vary. Alternative distributions provide little, if any, improvement in statistical fit from commonly used distributions. While median willingness to pay is largely invariant to distribution, estimates of mean consumer surplus diverge widely. Sensitivity analysis to determine benefit measure response to distributional assumptions is essential to prevent erroneous policy advice from applied dichotomous choice research.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2000. "Dichotomous choice contingent valuation probability distributions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), pages 1-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:117836
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.117836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/117836/files/1467-8489.00109.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.117836?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    2. 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.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    4. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop, 1988. "Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 20-28.
    5. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    6. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    7. 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.
    8. Bengt Kristrom, 1990. "A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 135-139.
    9. Boyle, Kevin J. & Welsh, Michael P. & Bishop, Richard C., 1988. "Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: comment," MPRA Paper 31237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
    11. Anna Alberini, 1995. "Testing Willingness-to-Pay Models of Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Survey Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 83-95.
    12. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1998. "Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 216-229.
    13. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
    14. Sellar, Christine & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Stoll, John R., 1986. "Specification of the logit model: The case of valuation of nonmarket goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 382-390, December.
    15. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    16. Creel, Michael & Loomis, John, 1997. "Semi-nonparametric Distribution-Free Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 341-358, March.
    17. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    18. Richard C. Ready & Dayuan Hu, 1995. "Statistical Approaches to the Fat Tail Problem for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 491-499.
    19. Bengt Kriström, 1997. "Spike Models in Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 1013-1023.
    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. Héctor Tavárez & Oscar Abelleira & Levan Elbakidze, 2024. "Environmental awareness and willingness to pay for biodiversity improvement in Puerto Rico," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 154-166, March.
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zawojska, Ewa & Meade, Norman & da Motta, Ronaldo Seroa & Welsh, Mike & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2024. "On the inference about a willingness-to-pay distribution using contingent valuation data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    3. Greiner, Romy & Rolfe, John, 2003. "Estimating consumer surplus and elasticity of demand of tourist visitation to a region in North Queensland using contingent valuation," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57881, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Lee, Chul-Yong & Heo, Hyejin, 2016. "Estimating willingness to pay for renewable energy in South Korea using the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 150-156.
    5. Railey, Ashley F. & Lankester, Felix & Lembo, Tiziana & Reeve, Richard & Shirima, Gabriel & Marsh, Thomas L., 2019. "Enhancing livestock vaccination decision-making through rapid diagnostic testing," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 16(C).
    6. Jeff Bennett, 2005. "Australasian environmental economics: contributions, conflicts and ‘cop‐outs’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 243-261, September.
    7. Chin-Huang Huang & Chiung-Hsia Wang, 2015. "Estimating the Total Economic Value of Cultivated Flower Land in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Norbert Brunner & Vijay Mishra & Ponnusamy Sakthivel & Markus Starkl & Christof Tschohl, 2015. "The Human Right to Water in Law and Implementation," Laws, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-59, August.
    9. Vesely, Eva-Terezia, 2007. "Green for green: The perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 605-615, August.
    10. Naresh Nepal & Eric Steltzer & Alok K. Bohara & Kelly Cullen, 2018. "Public values on offshore wind farm," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(1), pages 225-240, January.
    11. Brett Day, 2007. "Distribution-free estimation with interval-censored contingent valuation data: troubles with Turnbull?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 777-795, August.
    12. Chun-Chu Yeh & Cheng-Shen Lin & Chin-Huang Huang, 2018. "The Total Economic Value of Sport Tourism in Belt and Road Development—An Environmental Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.

    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. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    4. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    9. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, "undated". "Intuitive Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 9609, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    10. Timothy C. Haab, "undated". "Indifference or Misspecification? The Distributional Impacts of Indifference on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 9607, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    11. Henry-Osorio, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ronald C., 2012. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Modeling Binary Choices: Estimating Willingness to Pay for Recreation Site Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    13. Torero, Maximo & Chowdhury, Shyamal K. & Galdo, Virgilio, 2003. "Willingness to pay for the rural telephone service in Bangladesh and Peru," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 327-361, September.
    14. Arana, Jorge E. & Leon, Carmelo J., 2005. "Flexible mixture distribution modeling of dichotomous choice contingent valuation with heterogenity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 170-188, July.
    15. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    16. Timothy Haab, 1999. "Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(4), pages 443-461, December.
    17. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    19. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    20. Poe, Gregory L. & Vossler, Christian A., 2001. "Does Specification Error Explain the Discrepancy Between Open-Ended and Dichotomous Choice Contigent Valuation Responses? A Comment on "Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Valuation Methods"," Working Papers 127665, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aareaj:117836. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.