Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hn9fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-20T16:13:17.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Models for Contingent Valuation Surveys: Statistical Efficiency and the Precision of Benefit Estimates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Timothy Park  and
John Loomis
Timothy Park
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
John Loomis
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental Studies and Department of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis
Get access

Extract

This paper empirically tested the three conditions identified by McConnell for equivalence of the linear utility difference model and the valuation function approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Using a contingent valuation survey for deer hunting in California, two of the three conditions were violated. Even though the models are not simple linear transforms of each other for this survey, estimates of mean willingness to pay and their associated 95% confidence intervals around the mean were quite similar for the valuation methods.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , October 1992 , pp. 170 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

University of Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Article no. 10176.

References

Amemiya, T. “Qualitative Response Models.” Journal of Economic Literature 19 (1981):1483–1536.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E., and Strand, I.E. Jr., “The Effects of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates.” Land Economics 63 (1987):11–20.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E., McConnell, K.E., and Strand, I.E. Jr., “Measuring the Benefits of Improvements in Water Quality: The Chesapeake Bay.” Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, October 1987.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):355–80.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A. “Cameron's Censored Logistic Regression Model: Reply.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20(1991a):303–5.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A. “Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Land Economics 67(1991b):413–21.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.E. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984):332–41.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Comment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (1989):1057–61.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A.L. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (1986):715–19.Google Scholar
Loomis, J., Creel, M., and Cooper, J. “Economic Benefits of Deer in California: Hunting and Viewing Values.” Institute of Ecology Report no. 32. University of California, Davis, 1989.Google Scholar
McConnell, K.E. “Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18 (1990):19–35.Google Scholar
Patterson, D.A., and Duffield, J.W. “Comment on Cameron's Censored Logistic Regression Model for Referendum Data.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20 (1991):275–83.Google Scholar
Royall, R.M. “Model Robust Confidence Intervals Using Maximum Likelihood Estimators.” International Statistical Review 54 (1986):221–26.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):280–91.Google Scholar