期刊文献+

A Comparison of Value Elicitation Question Formats in Multiple-Good Contingent Valuation

A Comparison of Value Elicitation Question Formats in Multiple-Good Contingent Valuation
原文传递
导出
摘要 This paper provides a convergent validity test of two types of multinomial choice questions vis-a-vis a dichotomous choice question by formally testing whether these stated preference elicitation question formats provide comparable welfare estimates. In particular, a dichotomous choice question, a traditional multinomial choice question, and a modified multinomial choice question suggested by Carson and Groves (2007) were applied in split samples to assess the influence of the informational and incentive properties on the respondents' annual willingness to accept compensation for adopting costly conservation practices in agriculture that benefit the environment. Our findings suggest that the two multinomial choice question formats elicit a similar mean willingness to accept distributions, but they are both different from a standarddichotomous choice question. Further, the willingness to accept distributions derived from the multinomial choice question formats are more dispersed than those from the dichotomous choice question. This paper provides a convergent validity test of two types of multinomial choice questions vis-a-vis a dichotomous choice question by formally testing whether these stated preference elicitation question formats provide comparable welfare estimates. In particular, a dichotomous choice question, a traditional multinomial choice question, and a modified multinomial choice question suggested by Carson and Groves (2007) were applied in split samples to assess the influence of the informational and incentive properties on the respondents' annual willingness to accept compensation for adopting costly conservation practices in agriculture that benefit the environment. Our findings suggest that the two multinomial choice question formats elicit a similar mean willingness to accept distributions, but they are both different from a standarddichotomous choice question. Further, the willingness to accept distributions derived from the multinomial choice question formats are more dispersed than those from the dichotomous choice question.
出处 《Frontiers of Economics in China-Selected Publications from Chinese Universities》 2014年第1期85-108,共24页 中国高等学校学术文摘·经济学(英文版)
关键词 stated preference choice experiment dichotomous choice incentive compatibility multinomial choice stated preference, choice experiment, dichotomous choice,incentive compatibility, multinomial choice
  • 相关文献

参考文献34

  • 1Aase J K, Siddoway F H, Black A (1985). Effectiveness of grass barriers for reducing wind erosion. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40:354-357.
  • 2Aase J K, Pikul Jr J L (1995). Terrace formation in cropping strips protected by tall wheatgrass barriers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 50:110-112.
  • 3Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80:64-75.
  • 4Alberini A (1995). Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: Single-bounded, double-bounded and bivariate models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28:287-306.
  • 5Albert J, Chib S (1993). Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88:669-679.
  • 6Bateman I J, Day B H, Jones A P, Jude S (2009). Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58:106-118.
  • 7Birol E, Smale M, Gyovai A (2006). Using choice experiments to estimate farmers' valuation of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian small farms. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34: 439469.
  • 8Bosworth R, Cameron T A, DeShazo J R (2009). Demand for environmental policies to improve health: Evaluating community-level policy scenarios. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 57:293-308.
  • 9Brown T C, Peterson G L (2003). Multiple good valuation. In: Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. J., Brown, T. C. (Eds), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 211-258. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
  • 10Cameron T A (1988). A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of EnvironmentalEconomics and Management, 15:355-379.

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部