IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v17y2000i1p1-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models

Author

Listed:
  • Bente Halvorsen

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to investigate whetherrespondents perceive a discrete-choice contingentvaluation (DC-CVM) question differently from a rankingquestion. We combine the two approaches to valuepublic projects that try to prevent people from dyingprematurely. The combined valuation procedure enablesus to investigate the internal consistency of theutility structure between choices, applying nested andnon-nested logit models. If the preference structureis allowed to shift, the relative utility weights ofthe attributes differ between the valuation questions,and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimate from thecombined procedure changes. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Suggested Citation

  • Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:17:y:2000:i:1:p:1-19
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008336406885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008336406885
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008336406885?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1996. "Testing the consistency of nested logit models with utility maximization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 33-39, January.
    2. Magat, Wesley A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Huber, Joel, 1988. "Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 395-411, December.
    3. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    4. Bengt Kriström, 1993. "Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 63-71, February.
    5. Mordechai Shechter, 1991. "A comparative study of environmental amenity valuations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 129-155, June.
    6. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K. & McFadden, Daniel, 1995. "A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 1-30, January.
    7. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    8. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
    9. 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.
    10. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    11. Catherine L. Kling & Joseph A. Herriges, 1995. "An Empirical Investigation of the Consistency of Nested Logit Models with Utility Maximization," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(4), pages 875-884.
    12. Daniel McFadden, 1977. "Modelling the Choice of Residential Location," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 477, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    13. Loomis, John B., 1990. "Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 78-85, January.
    14. Teofilo Ozuna & Kee Yoon Jang & John R. Stoll, 1993. "Testing for Misspecification in the Referendum Contingent Valuation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-338.
    15. 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.
    16. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-551, June.
    17. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1993. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521447928, November.
    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. Strand.J., 2001. "Public- and private-good values of statistical lives : results from a combined choice-experiment and contingent-valuation survey," Memorandum 31/2001, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    2. José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    3. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    4. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    5. Bente Halvorsen & Tiril Willumsen, 2002. "Willingness to Pay for Dental Fear Treatment. Is Supplying Fear Treatment Socially Beneficial?," Discussion Papers 334, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    6. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.

    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. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
    2. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
    3. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    4. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    5. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
    6. Birol, Ekin & Kontoleon, Andreas & Smale, Melinda, 2006. "Combining revealed and stated preference methods to assess the private value of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian home gardens:," EPTD discussion papers 156, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    9. Lahiri, Kajal & Gao, Jian, 2002. "Bayesian analysis of nested logit model by Markov chain Monte Carlo," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 103-133, November.
    10. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. 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.
    12. Gil-Molto, Maria Jose & Hole, Arne Risa, 2004. "Tests for the consistency of three-level nested logit models with utility maximization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 133-137, October.
    13. Gil-Molto, Maria Jose & Hole, Arne Risa, 2004. "Tests for the consistency of three-level nested logit models with utility maximization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 133-137, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Carmelo León & Francisco Vázquez-Polo, 1998. "A Bayesian Approach to Double Bounded Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 197-215, March.
    16. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    17. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaincharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2007. "Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 283/2007, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    18. repec:cte:werepe:we060201 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. 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.
    20. Richard O‘Conor & Magnus Johannesson & Per-Olov Johansson, 1999. "Stated Preferences, Real Behaviour and Anchoring: Some Empirical Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 235-248, March.
    21. Phaneuf, Daniel James, 1997. "Generalized corner solution models in recreation demand," ISU General Staff Papers 1997010108000013022, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

    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:kap:enreec:v:17:y:2000:i:1:p:1-19. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.