IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v64y1998i3p665-681.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Consistent Method for Calibrating Contingent Value Survey Data

Author

Listed:
  • Carol Mansfield

Abstract

This paper outlines a statistical method for calibrating contingent value survey data derived from the assumption that individuals make constrained utility maximizing decisions. The method proposed allows us to determine the influence of respondent characteristics on bias, as distinct from their influence on the preference parameters. A specific functional form for individual preferences was used to derive closed‐form analytical expressions for willingness‐to‐pay and willingness‐to‐accept that allow systematic deviations in individual responses to be explicitly modeled by providing a structural interpretation of the error term. Promising results are obtained for both open‐ended and dichotomous choice data using three CV data sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Carol Mansfield, 1998. "A Consistent Method for Calibrating Contingent Value Survey Data," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 665-681, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:64:y:1998:i:3:p:665-681
    DOI: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.1998.tb00086.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.1998.tb00086.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/j.2325-8012.1998.tb00086.x?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. 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.
    2. Andreoni, James, 1995. "Cooperation in Public-Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 891-904, September.
    3. John K. Horowitz, 1993. "A New Model of Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1268-1272.
    4. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    5. McKinley Blackburn & Glenn W. Harrison & E. Elisabet Rutström, 1994. "Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1084-1088.
    6. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    9. John P. Hoehn, 1991. "Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(2), pages 289-299.
    10. Hoehn John P. & Loomis John B., 1993. "Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 56-75, July.
    11. McConnell, K. E., 1990. "Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 19-34, January.
    12. Bohm, Peter, 1984. "Revealing demand for an actual public good," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 135-151, July.
    13. Brookshire, David S & Coursey, Don L, 1987. "Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 554-566, September.
    14. Wallace, T D, 1972. "Weaker Criteria and Tests for Linear Restrictions in Regression," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(4), pages 689-698, July.
    15. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    16. Peter Bohm, 1984. "Revealing demand for an actual public good," Framed Field Experiments 00129, The Field Experiments Website.
    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. Richard A. Hofler & John A. List, 2004. "Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 213-221.

    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. 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.
    3. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-233, March.
    5. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 193-205, October.
    6. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    7. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    9. González-Cabán, Armando & Loomis, John B. & Rodriguez, Andrea & Hesseln, Hayley, 2007. "A comparison of CVM survey response rates, protests and willingness-to-pay of Native Americans and general population for fuels reduction policies," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 49-71, May.
    10. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 92(3).
    11. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    12. Bénédicte Rulleau & Jeoffrey Dehez & Patrick Point, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(3), pages 291-310.
    13. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    14. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2012. "Recreational value, user heterogeneity and site characteristics in contingent valuation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 195-204.
    15. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    16. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.
    17. Robert J. Johnston & RStephen K. Swallow & Dana Marie Bauer, 2002. "Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 481-500.
    18. Carol Mansfield, 1999. "Despairing Over Disparities: Explaining the Difference Between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 219-234, March.
    19. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    20. Hoehn, John P. & Loomis, John B., 1992. "Substitution Effects in the Contingent Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs: A Maximum Likelihood Estimator and Empirical Tests," Staff Paper Series 201147, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

    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:wly:soecon:v:64:y:1998:i:3:p:665-681. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    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.