One and One-Half Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation

Cooper, Joseph C. and Hanemann, W.M. and Signorello, Giovanni (2002): One and One-Half Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Published in: Review of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 84, (November 2002): pp. 742-750.

Abstract

To reduce the potential for response bias on the follow-up bid in multiple-bound discrete choice CVM questions while maintaining much of the efficiency gains of the multiple-bound approach, we introduce the one-and-one-half-bound (OOHB) approach. Despite the fact that the OOHB model uses less information than the double-bound (DB) approach, efficiency gains in moving from single-bound to OOHB capture a large portion of the gain associated with moving from single-bound to DB. In an analysis of survey data, our OOHB estimates demonstrated higher consistency with respect to the follow-up data than the DB estimates and were more efficient as well.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: contingent valuation, double-bound, one-and-one-half bound
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q26 - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C15 - Statistical Simulation Methods: General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q20 - General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C25 - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models ; Discrete Regressors ; Proportions ; Probabilities

References

Altaf, M. and J. DeShazo. “Bid Elicitation in the Contingent Valuation Method: The Double Referendum Format and Induced Strategic Behaviour,” working paper, Harvard University, Arts and Sciences, Urban Planning Committee, March, 1994.

Bishop, R., and T. Heberlein. 1979. “Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(4):926-30.

Cameron, T.A. and J. Quiggin. 1994. “Estimation using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-up Questionnaire.” Journal of Environmental economics and Management 27(3):218-234.

Carson, R., R. Mitchell, M. Hanemann, R. Kopp, S. Presser and P. Ruud. “A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil Spill.” Report to the Attorney General of Alaska, NRDA Inc, La Jolla CA., November 1992.

Chen, H.Z. and A. Randall. 1997 “Semi-Parametric Estimation of Binary Response Models with an Application to Natural Resource Valuation.” Journal of Econometrics 76(1-2):323-40.

Cooper, J., “Flexible-form and Semi-nonparametric Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, forthcoming, May 2001.

Cooper, J. “Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24(1993):25-40.

Creel, M. and J. Loomis. “Semi-nonparametric Distribution-Free Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(March, 1997):341-358.

Deacon, R. and P. Shapiro. 1975. “Perry Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda.” American Economic Review 65(5):943-55.

DeShazo, J.R. 2000. “Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats.” Mimeograph, School of Public Policy and Social Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

Efron, B. 1987. “Better Bootstrap Confidence Intervals.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 82(397):171-185.

Gallant,A. 1982. “Unbiased Determination of Production Technologies.” Journal of Econometrics 20:285-323.

Hanemann, W. Michael. Comments in David Imber, Gay Stevenson and Leanne Wilkes. “A Contingent Valuation Survey of the Kakadu Conservation Zone.” Canberra, Australia: Resource Assessment Commission. RAC Research paper No. 3, February 1991, 187 192.

Hanemann, W. Michael. 1984. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3):332-341.

Hanemann, W. Michael, J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen. 1991. “Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(4):1255-1263.

Herriges, J. and J. Shogren. 1996. “Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-up Questioning.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(January): 112-131.

Kanninen, B.J. 1995. “Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(1):114-125.

McFadden, D. and G. Leonard, “Issues in Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: Methodologies for data Collection and Analysis” in J.A. Hausman (ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.

Minkin, S. 1987. “Optimal Design of Binary Data.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 82(400):1098-1103.

Svento, R. 1993. “Some Notes on Trichotomous Choice Discrete Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 3(6): 533-43.