IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v25y2003i4p461-476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabetta Strazzera
  • Margarita Genius
  • Riccardo Scarpa
  • George Hutchinson

Abstract

Contingent valuation studies are often characterized by a considerable number of protest responses, which may cause selectivity bias on the final estimates for WTP. Sample selection models can detect and – if necessary – correct selectivity bias. In economic applications where the relevant dependent variable is continuous, sample selection models are generally estimated using Heckman's 2-step method rather than the FIML estimator. Either method has its own drawback: computational complexity for the FIML method, susceptibility to collinearity problems for the 2-step method. Using data on valuation of forest resources for recreational use, we analyse the performance of the two estimators. In this application, given the presence of some collinearity, the FIML is preferred to the 2-step method. A procedure is outlined to deal with selectivity problems in similar settings. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, 2003. "The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 461-476, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:25:y:2003:i:4:p:461-476
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1025098431440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1025098431440
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1025098431440?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. Ian Langford* & Areti Kontogianni & Mihalis Skourtos & Stavros Georgiou & Ian Bateman, 1998. "Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data: Willingness To Pay For Conservation of Monk Seals," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 443-456, December.
    2. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-10, October.
    3. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    4. Werner, Megan, 1999. "Allowing for Zeros in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent-Valuation Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 17(4), pages 479-486, October.
    5. An, Mark Y. & Roberto Ayala, 1995. "A Mixture Model of Willingness to Pay Distributions," Working Papers 95-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    6. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    7. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1999. "A Sample Selection Model for Protest Non-Response Votes in Contingent Valuation Analyses," Working Paper CRENoS 199905, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    8. Timothy Haab, 1999. "Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(4), pages 443-461, December.
    9. Patrick Puhani, 2000. "The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 53-68, February.
    10. Siu Fai Leung & Shihti Yu, 2000. "Collinearity and Two-Step Estimation of Sample Selection Models: Problems, Origins, and Remedies," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 15(3), pages 173-199, June.
    11. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    12. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
    13. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    14. Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 1999. "Estimating the Benefits of Agri-environmental Policy: Econometric Issues in Open-ended Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 23-43.
    15. Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.
    16. Leung, Siu Fai & Yu, Shihti, 1996. "On the choice between sample selection and two-part models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1-2), pages 197-229.
    17. Francis Vella, 1998. "Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(1), pages 127-169.
    18. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J., 2000. "Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 251-265, May.
    19. Shyamsundar, Priya & Kramer, Randall A., 1996. "Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-144, September.
    20. Whitehead, John C. & Groothuis, Peter A. & Blomquist, Glenn C., 1993. "Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation : Analysis of a combination phone/mail survey," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 215-220.
    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. Sun, Chuanwang & Yuan, Xiang & Yao, Xin, 2016. "Social acceptance towards the air pollution in China: Evidence from public's willingness to pay for smog mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 313-324.
    2. Madureira, Lívia & Nunes, Luis C. & Borges, José G. & Falcão, André O., 2011. "Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: A Portuguese case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 399-414.
    3. Mosi Rosenboim & Tal Shavit, 2012. "Whose money is it anyway? Using prepaid incentives in experimental economics to create a natural environment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 145-157, March.
    4. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius, 2004. "The Copula Approach to Sample Selection Modelling: An Application to the Recreational Value of Forests," Working Papers 2004.73, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. 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.
    6. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, J.M. & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 267-285, April.
    9. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    10. Collins, Alan R. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2007. "Protest Adjustments in the Valuation of Watershed Restoration Using Payment Card Data," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Halkos, George, 2012. "Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes," MPRA Paper 39557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    13. Dahal, Ram P. & Grala, Robert K. & Gordon, Jason S. & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Munn, Ian A., 2018. "Estimating the willingness to pay to preserve waterfront open spaces using contingent valuation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 614-626.
    14. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2003. "Consumer Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Foods: A Telephone Survey," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21999, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Seung-Jun Kwak & Tai-Yoo Kim, 2001. "Modelling willingness to pay responses from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys with zero observations," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 523-529.
    16. Mark Pennington & Manuel Gomes & Cam Donaldson, 2017. "Handling Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 623-634, August.
    17. Ngouhouo Poufoun, Jonas & Abildtrup, Jens & Sonwa, Dénis Jean & Delacote, Philippe, 2016. "The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 70-86.
    18. Chandra Kiran B. Krishnamurthy & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Determinants of the Price-Premium for Green Energy: Evidence from an OECD Cross-Section," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(2), pages 173-204, June.
    19. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    20. Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.

    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:25:y:2003:i:4:p:461-476. 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.