Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:02:03.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do CVM Welfare Estimates Suffer from On-Site Sampling Bias? A Comparison of On-Site and Household Visitor Surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Juan Marcos González-Sepúlveda  and
John B. Loomis
Juan Marcos González-Sepúlveda
Affiliation:
RTI Solutions in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
John B. Loomis
Affiliation:
Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The problem of endogenous stratification associated with on-site sampling has been overlooked in the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). We find that using on-site samples of visitors overstates visitor willingness to pay (WTP) estimates relative to a household sample of visitors, and substantially overstates the unconditional population values. We provide two methods of correcting WTP of on-site samples. The uncorrected on-site sample CVM yields WTP of $132 per trip, while visitor WTP obtained from a random sample of households had a value of $66 per trip. Adaptation of choice-based sampling correction estimator to the on-site CVM data yields $73 per trip, not statistically different from the visitor value from the household survey, but significantly different from the uncorrected on-site sample value.

Keywords

contingent valuation methodendogenous stratificationon-site sampling bias
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , October 2010 , pp. 561 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bhat, M.G. 2003. “Application of Non-Market Valuation to the Florida Keys Marine Reserve Management.” Journal of Environmental Management 67(4): 315–325.Google Scholar
Chase, L.C., Lee, D.R., Schulze, W.D., and Anderson, D.J. 1998. “Ecotourism Demand and Differential Pricing of National Park Access in Costa Rica.” Land Economics 74(4): 466–482.Google Scholar
Creel, M., and Loomis, J. 1990. “Theoretical and Empirical Advantages of Truncated Count Data Estimating for Analysis of Deer Hunting in California.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(4): 434–441.Google Scholar
Englin, J., and Shonkwiler, J.S. 1995. “Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand Under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation.” Review of Economics and Statistics 77(1): 104–112.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric Analysis (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Haab, T. 1999. “Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 14(4): 443–461.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as Specification Error.” Econometrica 47(1): 153–161.Google Scholar
Loomis, J. 2003. “Travel Cost Demand Model Based River Recreation Benefit Estimates with On-Site and Household Surveys: Comparative Results and a Correction Procedure.” Water Resources Research 39(4): 1105–1108.Google Scholar
Manski, C., and Lerman, S. 1977. “The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples.” Econometrica 45(8): 1977–1988.Google Scholar
Martinez-Espineira, R., Amoako-Tuffour, J., and Hilbe, J. 2006. “Travel Cost Demand Model Based Recreation Benefit Estimates with On-Site and Household Surveys: Comparative Results and a Correction Procedure: Reevaluation.” Water Resources Research 42 (doi:10.1029/2005WR004798).Google Scholar
McFadden, D., and Reid, F. 1975. “Aggregate Travel Demand Forecasting from Disaggregate Behavioral Models.” Transportation Research Record 534(1): 24–37.Google Scholar
Moeltner, K., and Shonkwiler, J.S. 2005. “Correcting for On-Site Sampling in Random Utility Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 327–339.Google Scholar
Nowell, C., Evans, M.A., and McDonald, L. 1988. “Length-Biased Sampling in Contingent Valuation Studies.” Land Economics 64(4): 367–371.Google Scholar
Poe, G.L., Giraud, K.L., and Loomis, J.B. 2005. “Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 353–365.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. 1988. “On-Site Samples Regression: Problems of Non Negative Integers, Truncation and Endogenous Stratification.” Journal of Econometrics 37(2): 211–223.Google Scholar
Westin, R. 1974. “Predictions from Binary Choice Models.” Journal of Econometrics 2(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Whitehead, J., Groothuis, P., and Blomquist, G. 1993. “Testing for Non-Response and Sample Selection Bias in Contingent Valuation.” Economic Letters 41(2): 215–230.Google Scholar