IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gla/glaewp/2002_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What’s it worth? Exploring value uncertainty using interval questions in Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Hanley
  • Bengt Kristrom

Abstract

In this paper we explore the idea that people only know the value they place on a given environmental change as a range, rather than as a singleton. We use the payment ladder design of contingent valuation, and take as a case study the value of coastal water quality improvements in Scotland. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, Tobit analysis and a modified Turnbull algorithm are used to explore the data. We find that most people state their values as a range, and investigate empirically the determinants of this range. The paper concludes with some thoughts concerning possible links between value ranges, context-dependence and uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Hanley & Bengt Kristrom, "undated". "What’s it worth? Exploring value uncertainty using interval questions in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 2002_10, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    • Handle: RePEc:gla:glaewp:2002_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_22253_en.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    2. Mark Yuying An & Roberto Ayala, 1996. "Nonparametric Estimation of a Survivor Function with Across- Interval-Censored Data," Econometrics 9611003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Dubourg & Jones‐Lee & Graham Loomes, 1997. "Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(256), pages 681-702, November.
    4. Rauli Svento, 1993. "Some notes on trichotomous choice discrete valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(6), pages 533-543, December.
    5. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    6. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    7. Richard C. Ready & Ståle Navrud & RW. Richard Dubourg, 2001. "How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 315-326.
    8. S Georgiou & I H Langford & I J Bateman & R K Turner, 1998. "Determinants of Individuals' Willingness to Pay for Perceived Reductions in Environmental Health Risks: A Case Study of Bathing Water Quality," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(4), pages 577-594, April.
    9. Li Chuan-Zhong & Mattsson Leif, 1995. "Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-269, March.
    10. Jones-Lee, Michael W & Loomes, Graham & Philips, P R, 1995. "Valuing the Prevention of Non-fatal Road Injuries: Contingent Valuation vs. Standard Gambles," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 676-695, October.
    11. Robin Gregory & James Flynn & Stephen M. Johnson & Theresa A. Satterfield & Paul Slovic & Robert Wagner, 1997. "Decision-Pathway Surveys: A Tool for Resource Managers," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 240-254.
    12. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    13. Nick Hanley & David Bell & Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 2003. "Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(3), pages 273-285, March.
    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. Cecilia Håkansson, 2008. "A new valuation question: analysis of and insights from interval open-ended data in contingent valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 175-188, February.
    2. Marius Yapo & Jie He & Bruno Gagnon & Luc Savard & Roland Leduc, 2015. "La valeur économique pour l’amélioration de la qualité de l’eau: le cas de la rivière Magog et du lac Magog (Québec, Canada)," Cahiers de recherche 15-15, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    3. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.

    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. Akter, Sonia & Brouwer, Roy & Brander, Luke & van Beukering, Pieter, 2009. "Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1858-1863, April.
    3. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    4. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Svedsater, Henrik, 2007. "Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(1), pages 1-17.
    6. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    7. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    8. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Mart󹑺-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    9. Seon-Ae Kim & Jeffrey M. Gillespie & Krishna P. Paudel, 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 235-252, September.
    10. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    11. Sun, Lili & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2005. "Fuzzy Logic and Preference Uncertainty in Non-market Valuation," Working Papers 37021, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    12. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
    13. Ana Bedate & Luis Herrero & José Sanz, 2009. "Economic valuation of a contemporary art museum: correction of hypothetical bias using a certainty question," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(3), pages 185-199, August.
    14. Shaikh, Sabina L., 2005. "Does Uncertainty Matter: An Application to the Willingness to Pay to Reduce Swimming Bans in Chicago," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19134, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Mark Morrison & Thomas Brown, 2009. "Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 307-326, November.
    16. 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.
    17. María Xosé Vázquez & Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2006. "Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 403-417, April.
    18. Sabina Shaikh & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2005. "The Effect of Uncertainty on Contingent Valuation Estimates: A Comparison," Working Papers 2005-15, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    19. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett, 2013. "Preference uncertainty in stated preference studies: facts and artefacts," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(15), pages 2107-2115, May.
    20. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2014. "The Random Card Sort Method And Respondent Certainty In Contingent Valuation: An Exploratory Investigation Of Range Bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(10), pages 1213-1223, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    contingent valuation; preference uncertainty; payment ladders; contextdependence; coastal water quality; survival analysis;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gla:glaewp:2002_10. 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: Business School Research Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpglauk.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.