Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:08:42.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of “Don't Know” Responses to Referendum Contingent Valuation Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Michel K. Haener  and
Wiktor L. Adamowicz
Michel K. Haener
Affiliation:
Department of Rural Economy, University Alberta
Wiktor L. Adamowicz
Affiliation:
Department of Rural Economy, University Alberta
Get access

Abstract

This paper considers the treatment of “don't know” (DK) responses to referendum contingent valuation questions. The determinants of DK responses are empirically analyzed using a data set from a survey of old growth forest valuation. It is found that DK respondents possess unique characteristics that differentiate them from Yes and No respondents. These findings do not support the most common treatments of DK responses that are currently used. Responses to an open-ended question included in the survey are used to provide further insight into the preferences of DK respondents.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , October 1998 , pp. 218 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Adamowicz, W.L. 1991. Valuation of Environmental Amenities. Rural Economy Staff Paper 91-06. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Ben-Akiva, M., and Lerman, S.R. 1987. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., Krosnik, J.A., Mitchell, R.C., Presser, S., Ruud, P.A., and Smith, V.K., with Conaway, M. and Martin, K. 1995. Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation. Discussion Paper 96-05. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., and McCollum, D.W. 1995. “A Comparison of Contingent Values and Actual Willingness to Pay using a Donation Provision Mechanism with Possible Implications for Calibration.” Paper presented at the USDA W-133 meeting, Monterey, Calif. March.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., and Rutstrom, E.E. 1995. “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?” American Economic Review 85: 260–66.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. III. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 1990. Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. 1984. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 333–41.Google Scholar
Holmes, T.P., and Kramer, R.A. 1995. “An Independent Sample Test of Yes-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 121–32.Google Scholar
Kanninen, B.J. 1995. “Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28: 114–25.Google Scholar
Krosnick, J.A. 1991. “Responses for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5: 213–36.Google Scholar
Magelby, D. 1989. “Opinion Formation and Opinion Change in Ballot Proportion Campaigns.” In Manipulating Public Opinion, ed. Margolis, M. and Mauser, G. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishers.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Polasky, S., Gainutdinova, O., and Kervliet, J. 1996. “Comparing CV Responses with Voting Behavior: Open-Space Survey and Referendum in Corvallis, Oregon.” Paper presented at the USDA W-133 meeting, Jekyll Island, Ga. March.Google Scholar
Ready, R.C., Whitehead, J.C., and Blomquist, G.C. 1995. “Contingent Valuation when Respondents are Ambivalent.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 181–96.Google Scholar
Wang, H. 1997. “Treatment of ‘Don't Know’ Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32: 219–32.Google Scholar