Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:50:01.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dichotomous-Choice, Contingent-Valuation Questions: Functional Form Is Important

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Kevin J. Boyle
Kevin J. Boyle*
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maine
Get access

Abstract

A variety of questioning formats have been used in contingent-valuation studies, with dichotomous-choice questions becoming the preferred format. However, as with any empirical technique, continued applications raise questions that require attention if the credibility of the procedure is to be maintained. It is shown that estimated Hicksian surplus can be substantially affected by the selection of a functional form when analyzing responses to dichotomous-choice questions. Given that theory, intuition, and empiricism all play a role in developing these estimates, several maxims are suggested for evaluating and/or mitigating such effects in future studies.

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , October 1990 , pp. 125 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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.)

Footnotes

Marcia Phillips’ research assistance was invaluable. Comments on previous drafts by Rich Bishop, Mike Bowker, John Loomis, Steve Reiling, Spiro Stefano, and an anonymous referee are greatly appreciated. As usual, all errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author.

This research was supported by a grant from the Illinois Department of Conservation to HBRS, Madison, WI; by the University of Maine Agricultural Experiment Station; and by the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Publication no. 1486.

References

Amemiya, T. “Qualitative Response Models: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Literature 19 (1980):1483–1536.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D., and Bishop, R. C. “The Valuation Problem.” In Natural Resource Economics: Policy Problems and Contemporary Analysis, ed. Bromley, D. W. Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff, 1986.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. C., and Heberlein, T. A. “Measuring Values of Extra Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (1979):926–30.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. C., Heberlein, T. A., and Kealy, M. J. “Contingent Valuation of Environmental Assets: Comparisons with a Simulated Market.” Natural Resources Journal 23 (1983):619–33.Google Scholar
Bowker, J. M., and Stoll, J. R. “Toward a Total Value for Whooping Cranes Using Dichotomous Choice Nonmarket Methods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (1981):372–81.Google Scholar
Boyle, K. J., and Bishop, R. C. “Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (1988):20–28.Google Scholar
Boyle, K. J., Welsh, M. P., and Bishop, R.C. “Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques: Comment and Extension.” Land Economics 64 (1988):94–98.Google Scholar
Cameron, T. A., and James, M. D. “Efficient Estimation Methods for ‘Closed-Ended’ Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Review of Economics and Statistics 69 (1987):269–76.Google Scholar
Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., and Schulze, W. D. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, 1986.Google Scholar
Duffield, J., and Patterson, D. “A Probability Model: Implications for Design and Interpretation of Logistic Contingent Valuation.” In Benefits and Costs in Natural Resources Planning: Interim Report 2, ed. Boyle, K. J. and Heekin, T. Report of Regional Project W-133, Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, 1989.Google Scholar
Griffin, R. C., Montgomery, J. M., and Rister, M. E. “Selecting Functional Form in Production Function Analysis.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 12 (1987):216–27.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. M. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984):332–34.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. M. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (1989):1057–61.Google Scholar
Heberlein, T. A., and Bishop, R. C. “Assessing the Validity of Contingent Valuation: Three Field Experiments.” The Science of the Total Environment 56 (1986):99–107.Google Scholar
Hoehn, J. P., and Randall, A. “A Satisfactory Benefit-Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 (1987):226–47.Google Scholar
Huppert, D. D. “An Examination of Nonresponse Bias and Divergence Among Value Concepts: An Application to Central California Anadromous Fish Runs.” Paper presented at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Workshop, Marine and Sport Fisheries: Economic Valuation and Management, Seattle, 1988.Google Scholar
Johansson, P. O., Kriström, B., and Mäler, K. G. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Comment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (1989):1054–56.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. L., and Kotz, S. Distribution in Statistics: Continuous Multivariate Distributions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1972.Google Scholar
Loomis, J. B. “Balancing Public Trust Resources of Mono Lake and Los Angeles’ Water Right: An Economic Approach.” Water Resources Research 23 (1987):1449–56.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
McCollum, D. W., Bishop, R. C., and Welsh, M. P. “A Probabilistic Travel Cost Model for Rationed Recreation Opportunities.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Milon, J. W. “Contingent Valuation Experiments for Strategic Behavior.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17 (1989):293–308.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. C., and Carson, R. T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
Ozuna, T. Jr., Jones, L., Stoll, J. R., and Capps, O. Jr. “Functional Form and Welfare Measures in Truncated Recreation Demand Models.” In Benefits and Costs in Natural Resources Planning: Interim Report 2, ed. Boyle, K. J. and Heekin, T. Report of Regional Project W-133, Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, 1989.Google Scholar
Seller, C., Stoll, J. R., and Chavas, J. P. “Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques.” Land Economics 61 (1985):156–75.Google Scholar
Smith, V. K. “Some Issues in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation Studies.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 14 (1985):156–75.Google Scholar
Smith, V. K., Desvousges, W. H., and Fisher, A. “A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods for Estimating Environmental Benefits.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68 (1986):280–90.Google Scholar
Walsh, R. G., Loomis, J. B., and Gillman, R. D. “Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness.” Land Economics 60 (1984):14–29.Google Scholar
Ward, F. A., and Loomis, J. B. “The Travel Cost Demand Model as an Environmental Policy Assessment Tool: A Review of Literature.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 11 (1986):164–78.Google Scholar
Welsh, M.P. “Exploring the Accuracy of the Contingent Valuation Method: Comparisons with Simulated Markets.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1986.Google Scholar