IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v30y2001i02p189-197_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Follow-Up Questions to No Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Curtis, John A.

Abstract

The dichotomous choice contingent valuation survey format collects inexact information on willingness to pay (WTP), that is, whether WTP is greater or less than the bid price. Sometimes researchers make the precise conjecture that certain respondents have zero WTP using information from follow-up motive questions. But follow-up questions are designed to provide information on respondents’ motives, not refined information on the magnitude of WTP. Assuming that certain respondents have WTP = $0.00 is beyond the design of follow-up questions. The paper's results show that unless information from follow-up questions is utilized within the limitations of survey design, welfare and model parameter estimates are likely to have high standard errors leading to inappropriate policy prescriptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Curtis, John A., 2001. "The Use of Follow-Up Questions to No Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 189-197, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:30:y:2001:i:02:p:189-197_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500001131/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    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. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    2. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    3. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2015. "The public’s value for developing ocean energy technology in the Republic of Korea: A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 432-439.
    4. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    5. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    6. Lim, Kyoung-Min & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "Estimating the economic value of residential electricity use in the Republic of Korea using contingent valuation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 601-606.
    7. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    8. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    9. Johnston, Robert J. & Bauer, Dana Marie & Swallow, Stephen K., 2000. "The Influence Of Spatial Land Use Patterns On Rural Amenity Values And Willingness To Pay For Growth Management: Evidence From A Contingent Choice Survey," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21766, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Joseph C. Cooper & C. Tim Osborn, 1998. "The Effect of Rental Rates on the Extension of Conservation Reserve Program Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 184-194.
    11. Lee, Gunwoo & Kim, Soo-Yeob & Lee, Min-Kyu, 2015. "Economic evaluation of vessel traffic service (VTS): A contingent valuation study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 149-154.
    12. Lim, Seul-Ye & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Public's willingness to pay a premium for bioethanol in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-27.
    13. Guerrero-Baena, M. Dolores & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Glenk, Klaus, 2019. "Willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply reliability: An approach based on probability density functions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 11-22.
    14. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2012. "The Effects of Experience on Preference Uncertainty: Theory and Empirics for Public and Quasi-Public Goods," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2012-17, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    15. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    16. Timothy Park & John Loomis, 1996. "Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 149-162, March.
    17. J. Paul Combs & Rickey C. Kirkpatrick & Jason F. Shogren & Joseph A. Herriges, 1993. "Matching Grants and Public Goods: a Closed-Ended Contingent Valuation Experiment," Public Finance Review, , vol. 21(2), pages 178-195, April.
    18. Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.
    19. Hyo-Jin Kim & Se-Jun Jin & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Public Assessment of Releasing a Captive Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin into the Wild in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-8, September.
    20. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.

    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:cup:agrerw:v:30:y:2001:i:02:p:189-197_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.