IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/30799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trichotomous Choice: A Possible Solution To Dual Response Objectives In Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Loomis, John B.
  • Traynor, Kerri
  • Brown, Thomas C.

Abstract

We investigate the possibility that some respondents to a dichotomous choice question vote YES, even though they would not pay the posted dollar amount in order to register support for the project or policy. A trichotomous choice question format is proposed to determine if allowing respondents the opportunity to vote in favor of a project at an amount less than their bid affects estimated willingness to pay. Using univariate and multivariate tests, we find the trichotomous choice question format reduces the number of YES responses and produces a statistically significant decrease in willingness to pay for an open-space program.

Suggested Citation

  • Loomis, John B. & Traynor, Kerri & Brown, Thomas C., 1999. "Trichotomous Choice: A Possible Solution To Dual Response Objectives In Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:30799
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.30799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/30799/files/24020572.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.30799?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. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    4. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    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. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Nguyen Minh Duc & Rehl, Antonia & Siepmann, Ute & Pham Van Dinh, 2017. "Labour as a utility measure reconsidered," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 03-2017, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    3. 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.
    4. Abate, Tenaw G. & Börger, Tobias & Aanesen, Margrethe & Falk-Andersson, Jannike & Wyles, Kayleigh J. & Beaumont, Nicola, 2020. "Valuation of marine plastic pollution in the European Arctic: Applying an integrated choice and latent variable model to contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Krawczyk, Michał, 2012. "Testing for hypothetical bias in willingness to support a reforestation program," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 282-289.
    6. Duke, Joshua M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Systematic Influences of Policy Implementation and Conservation Agents on Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21234, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Mark Morrison & Thomas Brown, 2009. "Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 307-326, November.
    8. Alec Smith & B. Douglas Bernheim & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2014. "Neural Activity Reveals Preferences without Choices," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 1-36, May.
    9. Dietrich Earnhart, 2006. "Using Contingent-Pricing Analysis to Value Open Space and Its Duration at Residential Locations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 17-35.
    10. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2009. "Economics at the Fringe: Non-Market Valuation Studies and their Role in Land Use Plans in the United States," MPRA Paper 101193, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M. & Kukielka, Jessica B., 2008. "Optimizing Farmland Preservation Choices Across Communities and Jurisdictional Scales: To What Extent are Amenity Values and Selection Criteria Transferable?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6243, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    13. Ballad, Emma Legaspi & Shinbo, Teruyuki & Morooka, Yoshinori, 2018. "Evaluation of the Villagers' Willingness to Work or Pay for the Promotion of Community-based Marine Protected Areas in Cagayan Province, Philippines," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 20.
    14. Robert Johnston & Joshua Duke, 2008. "Benefit Transfer Equivalence Tests with Non-normal Distributions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.

    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. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    2. Thurow, Amy P. & Conner, J. Richard & Thurow, Thomas L. & Garriga, Matthew D., 2001. "A preliminary analysis of Texas ranchers' willingness to participate in a brush control cost-sharing program to improve off-site water yields," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 139-152, April.
    3. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    4. Hidano, Noboru & Kato, Takaaki & Aritomi, Masakazu, 2005. "Benefits of participating in contingent valuation mail surveys and their effects on respondent behavior: a panel analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 63-80, January.
    5. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    6. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    7. Galina Williams, 2015. "Households Willingness to Pay for the Emissions Reduction Policy, Queensland, Australia," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    8. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang & Ye, Tao, 2024. "Efficacy of hypothetical bias mitigation techniques: A cross-country comparison," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    10. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    11. 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.
    12. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    14. Loomis, John B., 2010. "Testing Construct Validity of River Recreation Use Values: A Comparison of Direct Elicitation of Use Values to Use Values Inferred Indirectly from WTP for Total Economic Value," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 60410, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop, 2006. "Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 162-173.
    16. Das, Chhandita & Anderson, Christopher M. & Swallow, Stephen K., 2006. "Incentive Compatible Mechanism Design for Discrete Choice Surveys," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21327, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    18. Walker, Susan H. & Rideout, Douglas B. & Loomis, John B. & Reich, Robin, 2007. "Comparing the value of fuel treatment options in northern Colorado's urban and wildland-urban interface areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 694-703, February.
    19. Loomis, John & Ekstrand, Earl, 1998. "Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 29-41, October.
    20. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:jlaare:30799. 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/waeaaea.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.