IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v39y2010i01p9-21_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Pseudo-Sequential Choice Model for Valuing Multi-Attribute Environmental Policies or Programs in Contingent Valuation Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Volinskiy, Dmitriy
  • Bergstrom, John C.
  • Cornwell, Christopher M.
  • Holmes, Thomas P.

Abstract

The assumption of independence of irrelevant alternatives in a sequential contingent valuation format should be questioned. Statistically, most valuation studies treat nonindependence as a consequence of unobserved individual effects. Another approach is to consider an inferential process in which any particular choice is part of a general choosing strategy of a survey respondent. A stochastic model is suggested, consistent with the reflexivity, transitivity, and continuity axioms of utility analysis. An application of this theoretical model to the valuation of watershed ecosystem restoration demonstrates that an empirical model recognizing reflexivity and transitivity, and also allowing for continuity, shows the highest in-sample predictive ability.

Suggested Citation

  • Volinskiy, Dmitriy & Bergstrom, John C. & Cornwell, Christopher M. & Holmes, Thomas P., 2010. "A Pseudo-Sequential Choice Model for Valuing Multi-Attribute Environmental Policies or Programs in Contingent Valuation Applications," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 9-21, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:39:y:2010:i:01:p:9-21_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500001799/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McClennen,Edward F., 1990. "Rationality and Dynamic Choice," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521360470, October.
    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. Hongmin Li & Scott Webster, 2017. "Optimal Pricing of Correlated Product Options Under the Paired Combinatorial Logit Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(5), pages 1215-1230, October.

    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. Marie-Edith Bissey & John Hey & Stefania Ottone, 2010. "Jekyll and Hyde," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 555-559.
    2. Christian Koboldt, 1996. "Consistent planning, backwards induction, and rule-governed behavior," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-48, March.
    3. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 2000. "Preference for Information and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 263-286, May.
    4. Mongin, P., 1998. "Does Optimization Imply Rationality?," Papers 9817, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
    5. Nathalie Etchart, 2002. "Adequate Moods for non-eu Decision Making in a Sequential Framework," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 1-28, February.
    6. Eran Hanany & Peter Klibanoff, 2008. "Updating Ambiguity Averse Preferences," Discussion Papers 1468, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Michèle Cohen & Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva, 2008. "Dynamic Decision Making when Risk Perception Depends on Past Experience," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 173-192, March.
    8. Francesco Bogliacino & Laura Jiménez & Gianluca Grimalda, 2015. "Consultative, Democracy and Trust," Documentos de Trabajo, Escuela de Economía 12696, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID.
    9. Bales, Adam & Cohen, Daniel & Handfield, Toby, 2013. "Decision theory for agents with incomplete preferences," MPRA Paper 49954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 1996. "Preference for Information," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1114, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    11. George Ainslie, 2012. "Pure hyperbolic discount curves predict “eyes open” self-control," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 3-34, July.
    12. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    13. Pan, Jinrui & Webb, Craig S. & Zank, Horst, 2015. "An extension of quasi-hyperbolic discounting to continuous time," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 43-55.
    14. Edward F. McClennen, 2004. "Prudence and Constitutional Rights," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 213-256, January.
    15. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2017. "Random Lottery Incentive Mechanism in Dynamic Choice Experiments," ThE Papers 17/02, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    16. Brian J. Cohen, 1996. "Is Expected Utility Theory Normative for Medical Decision Making?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 1-6, February.
    17. Fumagalli, Roberto, 2021. "Rationality, preference satisfaction and anomalous intentions: why rational choice theory is not self-defeating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112446, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    19. Marie Uzan-Milofsky, 2009. "Shall We Be Resolute?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 21(3), pages 337-357, August.
    20. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2021. "Large Compound Lotteries," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1057, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 01 Aug 2023.

    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:39:y:2010:i:01:p:9-21_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.