IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fec/journl/v9y2014i1p85-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Value Elicitation Question Formats in Multiple-Good Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Chih-Chen Liu

    (Department of Applied Economics, National University of Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung 81148, Taiwan, China)

  • Joseph A. Herriges
  • C. L. Kling

    (Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA)

  • Silvia Secchi

    (Department of Agribusiness Economics, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA)

  • Joan I. Nassauer

    (School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA)

  • Daniel J. Phaneuf

    (Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

Abstract

This paper provides a convergent validity test of two types of multinomial choice questions vis-¨¤-vis a dichotomous choice question by formally testing whether these stated preference elicitation question formats provide comparable welfare estimates. In particular, a dichotomous choice question, a traditional multinomial choice question, and a modified multinomial choice question suggested by Carson and Groves (2007) were applied in split samples to assess the influence of the informational and incentive properties on the respondents¡¯ annual willingness to accept compensation for adopting costly conservation practices in agriculture that benefit the environment. Our findings suggest that the two multinomial choice question formats elicit a similar mean willingness to accept distributions, but they are both different from a standard dichotomous choice question. Further, the willingness to accept distributions derived from the multinomial choice question formats are more dispersed than those from the dichotomous choice question.

Suggested Citation

  • Chih-Chen Liu & Joseph A. Herriges & C. L. Kling & Silvia Secchi & Joan I. Nassauer & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2014. "A Comparison of Value Elicitation Question Formats in Multiple-Good Contingent Valuation," Frontiers of Economics in China-Selected Publications from Chinese Universities, Higher Education Press, vol. 9(1), pages 85-108, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:fec:journl:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:85-108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journal.hep.com.cn/fec/EN/10.3868/s060-003-014-0006-2
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2018. "Can stated measures of willingness-to-accept be valid? Evidence from laboratory experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-149.
    2. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Giergiczny, Marek, 2018. "Valuing tap water quality improvements using stated preference methods. Does the number of discrete choice options matter?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274019, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    stated preference; choice experiment; dichotomous choice; incentive compatibility; multinomial choice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land

    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:fec:journl:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:85-108. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Frank H. Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.