Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:05:09.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying a Method of Paired Comparisons to Measure Economic Values for Multiple Goods Sets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Randall S. Rosenberger ,
George L. Peterson  and
John B. Loomis
Randall S. Rosenberger
Affiliation:
West Virginia University, Morgantown, and Regional Research Institute and Division of Resource Management
George L. Peterson
Affiliation:
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO
John B. Loomis
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A method of paired comparison is adapted for use in estimating economic measures of value. The method elicits multiple binary choices for paired items in a choice set. Probability distributions and economic values are estimated nonparametrically and parametri-cally. The method is applied in an experimental context with a choice set composed of four private goods and several sums of money. The sample's median value estimates for the goods are generally not different than the market prices for these goods. People who are in the market for a good value it higher than those not in the market for the good.

Keywords

alternative gainseconomic valuationhypothetical marketpaired comparisonsstated choice methodC51C80D12Q26
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , April 2002 , pp. 215 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

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

Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., and Louviere, J.. “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998): 64–75.Google Scholar
Alberini, A. “Efficiency vs. Bias of Willingness-To-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29(1995): 169–180.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. Value in Ethics and Economics. MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A. “A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-Market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15(1988):355–379.Google Scholar
Champ, P.A., and Loomis, J.B.. “WTA Estimates Using the Method Of Paired Comparison: Tests of Robustness.” Environmental and Resource Economics 12(1998):375–386.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., and Schulze, W.D. (eds.). Valuing Public Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
David, H.A. The Method of Paired Comparisons. London: Charles Griffin and Co., 1988.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. NY: The Free Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. “Value Elicitation: Is There Anything in There?” American Psychologist 46(1991): 835–847.Google Scholar
Gan, C, and Luzar, E.J.. “A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 25(1993): 36–45.Google Scholar
Green, P.E., and Srinivasan, V.. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook.” Journal of Consumer Research 5(1978): 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R., Flynn, J., Johnson, S.M., Satter-field, T.A., Slovic, P., and Wagner, R.. “Decision-Pathway Surveys: A Tool for Resource Managers.” Land Economics 73(1997):240–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(1984):332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C.C., Driver, B.L., and McLaughlin, W.J.. “Improving the Contingent Valuation Method: A Psychological Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17(1989):213–229.Google Scholar
Hogarth, R. Judgement and Choice, 2nd Edition. NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1987.Google Scholar
Johnson, F.R., and Desvousges, W.H.. “Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34(1997):79–99.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47(1979):263–291.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., and Thaler, R.. “The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1991): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristrom, B. “A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies.” Land Economics 66(1990):135–139.Google Scholar
Lockwood, M. “Integrated Value Assessment Using Paired Comparisons.” Ecological Economics 25(1998):73–87.Google Scholar
Lockwood, M. “Humans Valuing Nature: Synthesizing Insights from Philosophy, Psychology, and Economics.” Environmental Values 8(1999):381–401.Google Scholar
Loomis, J.B., Peterson, G.L., Brown, T.C., Champ, P.A., and Lucero, B.. “Paired Comparison Estimates of Willingness to Accept versus Contingent Valuation Estimates of Willingness to Pay.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 35(1998):501–16.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J. “Conjoint Analysis Modeling of Stated Preference: A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments, and External Validity.” Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy 22(1988):93–119.Google Scholar
McConnell, K.E. “Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economic and Management 18(1990): 19–34.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T.. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
Peterson, G.L., and Brown, T.C.. “Economic Valuation by the Method of Paired Comparison, With Emphasis on Evaluation of the Transitivity Axiom.” Land Economics 74(1998):240–261.Google Scholar
Peterson, G.L., Driver, B.L., and Gregory, R. (eds.). Amenity Resource Valuation: Integrating Economics With Other Disciplines. PA: Venture Publishing, 1988.Google Scholar
Roe, B., Boyle, K.J., and Teisl, M.F.. “Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(1996): 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberger, R.S., and Loomis, J.B.. “Panel Stratification in Meta-Analysis of Economic Studies: An Investigation of Its Effects in the Recreation Valuation Literature.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(2000):459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, R.D., Schulze, W.D., and Breffle, W.S.. “A Test for Payment Card Bias.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(1996):178–185.Google Scholar
Sagoff, M. “Aggregation and Deliberation in Valuing Environmental Public Goods: A Look Beyond Contingent Pricing.” Ecological Economics 24(1998):213–230.Google Scholar
Schkade, D.A., and Payne, J.W.. “How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay For an Environmental Regulation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(1994):88–109.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. “The Construction of Preference.” American Psychologist 50(1995):364–371.Google Scholar
Swallow, S.K., Weaver, T., Opaluch, J.J., and Michelman, T.S.. “Heterogeneous Preferences and Aggregation in Environmental Policy Analysis: A Landfill Siting Case.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(1994):431–443.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L.L. “A Law of Comparative Judgment.” Psychology Review 34(1927):273–286.Google Scholar