IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/duk/dukeec/95-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Carson, Richard T.
  • Hanemann, W. Michael
  • Kopp, Raymond J.
  • Krosnick, Jon A.
  • Mitchell, Robert C.
  • Presser, Stanley
  • Ruud, Paul A.
  • Smith, V. Kerry

Abstract

In 1992 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) convened a panel of prominent social scientists to assess the reliability of natural resource damage estimates derived from contingent valuation (CV). The product of the panel's deliberations was a report that laid out a set of recommended guidelines for CV survey design, administration, and data analysis. This paper focuses on one of these guidelines -- the Panel's call for the "temporal averaging" of willingness-to-pay (WTP) responses obtained from CV surveys as one method for increasing their reliability. The panel suggested: "Time dependent measurement noise should be reduced by averaging across independently drawn samples taken at different points in time. A clear and substantial time trend in the responses would cast doubt on the 'reliability' of the finding."

Suggested Citation

  • Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry, 1995. "Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 95-05, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:duk:dukeec:95-05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.duke.edu/Papers/Abstracts/abstract.95.05.html
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    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. John B. Loomis, 1989. "Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(1), pages 76-84.
    4. OKUBO Toshihiro & Matthew A. COLE & Robert J.R. ELLIOTT, 2010. "Environmental Outsourcing," Discussion papers 10055, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    5. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    6. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1986. "The Value of Avoiding a Lulu: Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(2), pages 293-299, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Loomis, John B., 1990. "Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 78-85, January.
    9. Hanemann, W., 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Economics," CUDARE Working Papers 198636, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    10. Anna Alberini, 1995. "Testing Willingness-to-Pay Models of Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Survey Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 83-95.
    11. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    12. Carson, R.T. & Mitchell, R.C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Kopp, R.J. & Presser, S. & Ruud, P.A., 1992. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," MPRA Paper 6984, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Kai-Lih Chen, 1999. "Measuring values of wetlands in Taiwan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(1), pages 65-89, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Kai-Lih Chen, 1999. "Measuring values of wetlands in Taiwan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(1), pages 65-89, March.
    6. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(2), pages 335-338, May.
    7. V. Smith & Xiaolong Zhang & Raymond Palmquist, 1997. "Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-Market Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 223-247, October.
    8. 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.
    9. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    10. 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.
    11. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    15. 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.
    16. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers 10503, Resources for the Future.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
    20. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1996. "The Importance Of The Market Area Determination For Estimating Aggregate Benefits Of Public Goods: Testing Differences In Resident And Nonresident Willingness To Pay," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-10, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    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:duk:dukeec:95-05. 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: Department of Economics Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://econ.duke.edu/ .

    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.