IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/toueco/v16y2010i4p1019-1035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Multivariate Probit Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Cave Conservation: A Case Study of Yanchep National Park, Western Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Sorada Tapsuwan

    (CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Private Bag 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia)

  • Michael Burton
  • James Perriam

Abstract

This study employed the double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation technique along with factor analysis to estimate visitors' willingness to pay (WTP) for the Yanchep Caves Recovery Project (YCRP). Two payment vehicles were used to elicit WTP: park entry fee and cave entry fee. The main contribution of this paper is the joint estimation of the two payment vehicles using the multivariate probit model by allowing the error terms of the two models to be correlated. Emphasis was given to testing whether parameters of the two bid levels should be constrained and to overcoming anchoring bias. The estimated median WTP for cave and park entry fees when accounting for anchoring effect and constrained parameters was AU$10.20 and AU$16.40, respectively. Without correcting for the anchoring effect, the WTP probability is overestimated for lower bids and underestimated for higher bids.

Suggested Citation

  • Sorada Tapsuwan & Michael Burton & James Perriam, 2010. "A Multivariate Probit Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Cave Conservation: A Case Study of Yanchep National Park, Western Australia," Tourism Economics, , vol. 16(4), pages 1019-1035, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:16:y:2010:i:4:p:1019-1035
    DOI: 10.5367/te.2010.0003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5367/te.2010.0003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5367/te.2010.0003?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kimhi, Ayal, 1999. "On the Tradeoff between Computational Simplicity and Asymptotic Properties in Multivariate Probit," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 13(1), pages 93-101, February.
    2. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    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. Ståle Navrud & Richard C. Ready (ed.), 2002. "Valuing Cultural Heritage," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1759.
    5. 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.
    6. Jorge Araña & Carmelo León, 2007. "Repeated Dichotomous Choice Formats for Elicitation of Willingness to Pay: Simultaneous Estimation and Anchoring Effect," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 475-497, April.
    7. Alessandro Lanza & Anil Markandya & Francesco Pigliaru (ed.), 2005. "The Economics of Tourism and Sustainable Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3876.
    8. Mary Riddel & John Loomis, 1998. "Joint Estimation of Multiple CVM Scenarios under a Double Bounded Questioning Format," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 77-98, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tapsuwan, Sorada & Peña-Arancibia, Jorge L. & Lazarow, Neil & Albisetti, Melisa & Zheng, Hongxing & Rojas, Rodrigo & Torres-Alferez, Vianney & Chiew, Francis H.S. & Hopkins, Richard & Penton, David J., 2022. "A benefit cost analysis of strategic and operational management options for water management in hyper-arid southern Peru," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    2. Meldrum, James R., 2015. "Comparing different attitude statements in latent class models of stated preferences for managing an invasive forest pathogen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 13-22.
    3. Pandit, Ram & Dhakal, Maheshwar & Polyakov, Maksym, 2015. "Valuing access to protected areas in Nepal: The case of Chitwan National Park," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-12.
    4. Meldrum, James R. & Champ, Patricia A. & Bond, Craig A., 2013. "Heterogeneous nonmarket benefits of managing white pine bluster rust in high-elevation pine forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-77.
    5. Tafesse Estifanos & Maksym Polyakov & Ram Pandit & Atakelty Hailu & Michael Burton, 2021. "What are tourists willing to pay for securing the survival of a flagship species? The case of protection of the Ethiopian wolf," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 45-69, February.
    6. Leask, Anna, 2016. "Visitor attraction management: A critical review of research 2009–2014," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 334-361.

    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. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    2. Burton, Anthony C. & Carson, Katherine S. & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2003. "An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 472-489, November.
    3. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Carson, Katherine Silz & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2009. "Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 219-225, March.
    6. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    8. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1998. "Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Paper CRENoS 199801, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    9. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    10. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    11. Haab, Timothy C., 1998. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire: A Comment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 190-194, March.
    12. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch, 2011. "Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Observing Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM," Working Papers 201124, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    13. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    14. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    15. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    16. repec:eid:wpaper:26/09 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Yang, Yu-Chen, 2018. "Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to pay for animal welfare eggs in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    18. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2005. "Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Cornflakes, and Salmon: Evidence from a U.S. Telephone Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-19, December.
    19. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. M. Genius & E. Strazzera, 2005. "Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach," Working Paper CRENoS 200502, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    21. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Adachi, Kenji, 2011. "A framework for estimating willingness-to-pay to avoid endogenous environmental risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 130-154, January.

    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:sae:toueco:v:16:y:2010:i:4:p:1019-1035. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.