IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v79y1997i1p252-266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Randomized Response Approach to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Joe Kerkvliet

Abstract

In this paper we combine dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DC-CV) with the randomized response (RR) method for asking sensitive survey questions. RR increases respondents' anonymity by allowing them to answer a sensitive question without revealing, with certainty, their true response. We combine RR with DC-CV to test for response effects in the valuation of a public good, in a setting of expected social pressure. While there are practical implementation issues, our findings suggest that the RR technique is a useful tool for exploring social context effects. Rather than generalize from our pre-test results, we instead emphasize the development of the experimental technique. Copyright 1997, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Joe Kerkvliet, 1997. "A Randomized Response Approach to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 252-266.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:79:y:1997:i:1:p:252-266
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1243959
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe & Polasky, Stephen & Gainutdinova, Olesya, 2003. "Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 261-277, June.
    2. Alok Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet & Robert Berrens, 2001. "Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 173-195, November.
    3. María A. García-Valiñas & Benno Torgler, 2008. "Impuestos y Protección Medioambiental: Un Análisis de las Preferencias Individuales a nivel Europeo," Working Papers 03-2008, Institute of Local Public Finance.
    4. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    5. Poe, Gregory L. & Giraud, Kelly L. & Loomis, John B., 2001. "Simple Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions: Application to Internal and External Scope Tests in Contingent Valuation," Staff Papers 121130, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    6. Francesco Riccioli & Roberto Fratini & Claudio Fagarazzi & Mario Cozzi & Mauro Viccaro & Severino Romano & Duccio Rocchini & Salomon Espinosa Diaz & Clara Tattoni, 2020. "Mapping the Recreational Value of Coppices’ Management Systems in Tuscany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, September.
    7. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. John A. List & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet, 2004. "Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 741-752, June.
    9. Zapata, Samuel D. & Carpio, Carlos E. & Isengildina-Massa, Olga & Lamie, R. David, 2013. "The Economic Impact of Services Provided by an Electronic Trade Platform: The Case of MarketMaker," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-20.
    10. Cook, Darron M., 1999. "A New Psychological Approach to Dichotomous Choice CVM," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 123795, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Usman Mustafa & Iftikhar Ahmad & Miraj ul Haq, 2014. "Capturing Willingness to Pay and Its Determinants for Improved Solid Waste Management," PIDE-Working Papers 2014:110, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    12. Bohara, Alok K. & McKee, Michael & Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol L. & Brookshire, David S., 1998. "Effects of Total Cost and Group-Size Information on Willingness to Pay Responses: Open Ended vs. Dichotomous Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 142-163, March.
    13. Dupont, Diane P., 2004. "Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 273-286, July.
    14. Curtis Lockwood Reynolds & Amanda L. Weinstein, 2021. "Gender differences in quality of life and preferences for location‐specific amenities across cities," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 916-943, November.
    15. Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Bohara, Alok K. & Silva, Carol L., 2002. "Further Investigation of Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Fair Share, Time of Contribution, and Respondent Uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 144-168, July.
    16. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    17. Torgler, Benno & Garcia-Valinas, Maria A., 2007. "The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing environmental damage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 536-552, August.
    18. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    19. Benno Torgler & Maria A. Garcia-Valiñas, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay for Preventing Environmental Damage," CREMA Working Paper Series 2005-22, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    20. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
    21. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen, 2014. "A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 35-57, May.
    22. Ekin Birol & Katia Karousakis & Phoebe Koundouri, 2006. "Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application," DEOS Working Papers 0607, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    23. Brown, Kelly M. & Taylor, Laura O., 2000. "Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 127-139, September.
    24. Natalia Melgar & Máximo Rossi, 2012. "Involvement in environmental causes, does the joint effect between subjective income and the performance of the country matter?," Revista de Economía del Rosario, Universidad del Rosario, June.
    25. John Dunham & Michael Marlow, 2003. "The economic incidence of smoking laws," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(18), pages 1935-1942.

    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:79:y:1997:i:1:p:252-266. 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.