IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v70y1988i1p20-28..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin J. Boyle
  • Richard C. Bishop

Abstract

Three commonly used techniques of asking contingent valuation questions are compared: iterative bidding, payment cards, and dichotomous choice. The results reveal that no single contingent valuation technique is neutral in the elicitation of hicksian surplus and each technique has its strengths and weaknesses. The iterative bidding estimates contain a starting point bias, while the payment card and dichotomous choice estimates were influenced by the interviewers soliciting the contingent values. Finally, the analysis of dichotomous choice responses involves unresolved issues that warrant further investigation. On the other hand, dichotomous choice is the easiest technique to administer in a survey setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop, 1988. "Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 20-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:70:y:1988:i:1:p:20-28.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1241972
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:ajagec:v:70:y:1988:i:1:p:20-28.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.