Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:39:57.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Follow-Up Questions to No Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

John A. Curtis
John A. Curtis*
Affiliation:
Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland
Get access

Abstract

The dichotomous choice contingent valuation survey format collects inexact information on willingness to pay (WTP), that is, whether WTP is greater or less than the bid price. Sometimes researchers make the precise conjecture that certain respondents have zero WTP using information from follow-up motive questions. But follow-up questions are designed to provide information on respondents’ motives, not refined information on the magnitude of WTP. Assuming that certain respondents have WTP = $0.00 is beyond the design of follow-up questions. The paper's results show that unless information from follow-up questions is utilized within the limitations of survey design, welfare and model parameter estimates are likely to have high standard errors leading to inappropriate policy prescriptions.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , October 2001 , pp. 189 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 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

Arrow, K, Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. 1993. “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58(10): 4601–4614.Google Scholar
Curtis, John A. 1998. “Valuing Preferences for Deer Management in Maryland.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael. 1984. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3): 332–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael and Kriström., Bengt 1995. “Preference Uncertainty, Optimal Designs and Spikes.” Current Issues in Environmental Economics, Johansson, Per-Olov, Kriström, Bengt and Mäler, Karl-Göran, Eds. 58–77. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Krinsky, Itzhak and Leslie Robb, A. 1986. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics LXVIII(4): 715–19.Google Scholar
Kriström, Bengt. 1997. “Spike Models in Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(3): 1013–23.Google Scholar
Kriström, Bengt. 1996. Spike Models in Contingent Valuation: Theory and Applications. Department of Forest Economics, SLU-Umea, Sweden, Working Paper No. 210.Google Scholar
Wang, Hua. 1997. “Treatment of ‘Don't Know’ Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Application.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(2): 219–32.Google Scholar