IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v75y1993i2p321-331..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Jo Kealy
  • Robert W. Turner

Abstract

A test is developed to find whether open-ended and closed-ended contingent valuation mechanisms lead to significantly different results. The test is based on joint estimation of willingness to pay responses to open- and closed-ended questions asked of the same sample of individuals. In a public good example, individuals do respond differently depending on question format. Possible explanations include different incentives for strategic behavior and respondents' lack of familiarity with the open-ended question type. No differences in willingness to pay were found in a private good example.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Jo Kealy & Robert W. Turner, 1993. "A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 321-331.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:75:y:1993:i:2:p:321-331.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1242916
    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:75:y:1993:i:2:p:321-331.. 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.