IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v75y1993i3p593-603..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models

Author

Listed:
  • John Mackenzie

Abstract

I compare the informational efficiencies of contingent rating, contingent ranking, and two contingent paired-comparison methods as alternatives to the referendum contingent valuation method. The contingent rating method is hypothesized to be most efficient because ratings convey information on preference intensities and can uniquely represent respondent indifference or ambivalence. Survey data on hunters' ratings of alternative hypothetical hunting trips are used to estimate four alternative indirect utility models from which marginal willingness-to-pay measures for individual trip attributes are derived. Model comparison, WTP estimates, and their confidence intervals confirm the relative efficiency of the contingent rating approach.

Suggested Citation

  • John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:75:y:1993:i:3:p:593-603.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1243566
    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:3:p:593-603.. 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.