IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saeatm/35193.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Income Reminder And The Divergence Between Willingness-To-Pay Estimates Associated With Dichotomous Choice And Open-Ended Elicitation Formats

Author

Listed:
  • He, Senhui
  • Jordan, Jeffrey L.
  • Florkowski, Wojciech J.

Abstract

This study investigates whether an income reminder can reduce the divergence between the willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates associated with the open-ended (OE) and dichotomous choice (DC) elicitation formats. Results show that without an income reminder, WTP estimate associated with DC elicitation format is about 1.66 times as large as that associated with OE elicitation format. With an income reminder, the WTP estimate associated with DC format decreased while the WTP estimate associated with OE format increased, and the divergence between the WTP estimates was almost eliminated.

Suggested Citation

  • He, Senhui & Jordan, Jeffrey L. & Florkowski, Wojciech J., 2003. "Income Reminder And The Divergence Between Willingness-To-Pay Estimates Associated With Dichotomous Choice And Open-Ended Elicitation Formats," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35193, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saeatm:35193
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.35193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/35193/files/sp03he04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.35193?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. Johannesson, Magnus & Jonsson, Bengt & Borgquist, Lars, 1991. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- results of a Swedish pilot study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 461-473.
    2. Kevin J. Boyle & Hugh F. MacDonald & Hsiang-tai Cheng & Daniel W. McCollum, 1998. "Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 49-64.
    3. Schkade David A. & Payne John W., 1994. "How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 88-109, January.
    4. Boyle, Kevin J. & Welsh, Michael P. & Bishop, Richard C., 1988. "Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: comment," MPRA Paper 31237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    6. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    7. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2003. "Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 59-72, January.
    3. Bateman, Ian J. & Brouwer, Roy, 2006. "Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: A novel scope-sensitivity test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 199-214, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Ryan, Mandy & San Miguel, Fernando, 2000. "Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 305-317, June.
    6. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    7. Lucinio Júdez & de Rosario Andrés & Carlos Pérez Hugalde & Elvira Urzainqui & Miguel Ibáñez, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 48, pages 37-60.
    8. Lucinio Júdez & Rosario de Andrés & Carlos Pérez Hugalde & Elvira Urzainqui & Miguel Ibáñez, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Post-Print hal-01200908, HAL.
    9. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C., 2001. "Is Actual Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format? Implications for Contingent Values," Western Region Archives 321681, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    10. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    11. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    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. Riera, Pere & Signorello, Giovanni & Thiene, Mara & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Navrud, Ståle & Kaval, Pamela & Rulleau, Benedicte & Mavsar, Robert & Madureira, Lívia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Elsasser, Pe, 2012. "Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 259-270.
    14. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    15. Cam Donaldson & Ruth Thomas & David Torgerson, 1997. "Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 79-84.
    16. Berglund, Christer, 2006. "The assessment of households' recycling costs: The role of personal motives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 560-569, April.
    17. Dominique Ami & Frédéric Aprahamian & Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini, 2011. "A Test of Cheap Talk in Different Hypothetical Contexts: The Case of Air Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 111-130, September.
    18. Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2000. "Dichotomous choice contingent valuation probability distributions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), pages 1-20.
    19. He, Senhui & Florkowski, Wojciech J. & Jordan, Jeffrey L., 2002. "Irrational Responses in Contingent Valuation and Their Potential Impacts on Mean Stated Willingness-to-pay," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24914, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:ags:saeatm:35193. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.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.