IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cns/cnscwp/200502.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach

Author

Listed:
  • M. Genius
  • E. Strazzera

Abstract

A Monte Carlo analysis is conducted to assess the validity of the bivariate modeling approach for detection and correction of different forms of elicitation effects in Double Bound Contingent Valuation data. Alternative univariate and bivariate models are applied to several simulated data sets, each one characterized by a specific elicitation effect, and their performance is assessed using standard selection criteria. The bivariate models include the standard Bivariate Probit model, and an alternative specification, based on the Copula approach to multivariate modeling, which is shown to be useful in cases where the hypothesis of normality of the joint distribution is not supported by the data. It is found that the bivariate approach can effectively correct elicitation effects while maintaining an adequate level of efficiency in the estimation of the parameters of interest.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Genius & E. Strazzera, 2005. "Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach," Working Paper CRENoS 200502, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    • Handle: RePEc:cns:cnscwp:200502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crenos.unica.it/crenos/node/221
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://crenos.unica.it/crenos/sites/default/files/wp/05-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    2. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    5. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    6. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    7. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    8. Lung-Fei Lee, 1982. "Some Approaches to the Correction of Selectivity Bias," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(3), pages 355-372.
    9. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius, 2004. "The Copula Approach to Sample Selection Modelling: An Application to the Recreational Value of Forests," Working Papers 2004.73, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    10. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    11. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    12. Donald M. McLeod & Olvar Bergland, 1999. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Using the Double-Bounded Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Format: A Test for Validity and Precision in a Bayesian Framework," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 115-125.
    13. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    14. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    15. Ruud, Paul A, 1983. "Sufficient Conditions for the Consistency of Maximum Likelihood Estimation Despite Misspecifications of Distribution in Multinomial Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(1), pages 225-228, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    2. Evans, Mary F. & Poulos, Christine & Kerry Smith, V., 2011. "Who counts in evaluating the effects of air pollution policies on households? Non-market valuation in the presence of dependencies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 65-79, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    2. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    3. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    4. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    5. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    6. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    7. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    9. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    10. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    11. Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Veronica Farreras & Jaime de Bobadilla, 2008. "Willingness to pay for a reduction in mortality risk after a myocardial infarction: an application of the contingent valuation method to the case of eplerenone," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(1), pages 69-78, February.
    12. Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Stéphane Luchini, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Post-Print inserm-00636179, HAL.
    13. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Adachi, Kenji, 2011. "A framework for estimating willingness-to-pay to avoid endogenous environmental risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 130-154, January.
    14. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2007. "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 183-194, September.
    15. Frédéric Salladarré & Dorothée Brécard & Sterenn Lucas & Pierrick Ollivier, 2016. "Are French consumers ready to pay a premium for eco-labeled seafood products? A contingent valuation estimation with heterogeneous anchoring," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 247-258, March.
    16. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    17. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Longo, Alberto, 2012. "Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1214-1225.
    18. McNair, Ben J. & Hensher, David A. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach," MPRA Paper 23427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Burton, Anthony C. & Carson, Katherine S. & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2003. "An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 472-489, November.
    20. Satoshi Yamazaki & Steven Rust & Sarah Jennings & Jeremy Lyle & Sven Frijlink, 2013. "Valuing recreational fishing in Tasmania and assessment of response bias in contingent valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 193-213, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    elicitation effects; bivariate models; probit; double bound; joe copula;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cns:cnscwp:200502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CRENoS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crenoit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.