Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T03:47:34.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

John M. Halstead ,
A.E. Luloff  and
Thomas H. Stevens
John M. Halstead
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire
A.E. Luloff
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University
Thomas H. Stevens
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts
Get access

Extract

Protest bids are often excluded during analysis of contingent valuation method data. It is suggested that this procedure might introduce significant bias. Protest bids are often registered by respondents who may actually place a higher- or lower-than-average value on the commodity in question but refuse to pay on the basis of ethical or other reasons. Exclusion of protest bids may therefore bias willingness to pay (WTP) results, but the direction of bias is indeterminate a priori.

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , October 1992 , pp. 160 - 169
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.)

Footnotes

Partial support for this project from the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station is gratefully acknowledged. We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments; all remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

References

Bowker, J.M., and Stoll, J.R. “Use of Dichotomous Choice Nonmarket Methods to Value the Whooping Crane Resource.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, no. 2 (1988):372–81.Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J. “Dichotomous Choice, Contingent Valuation Questions: Functional Form Is Important.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19 (1990):125–32.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., and Schulze, W.D. Valuing Environmental Goods. An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
Dalecki, M.G., Ilvento, T.W., and Moore, D.F. “The Effects of Multiwave Mailings on the External Validity of Mail Surveys.” Journal of the Community Development Society 19 (1988):51–70.Google Scholar
Desvousges, W.H., Smith, V.K., and Fisher, A. “Option Price Estimates for Water Quality: A Contingent Valuation Study from the Monongahela River.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 (1987):248–67.Google Scholar
Desvousges, W.H., Smith, V.K., and McGivney, M.P. “A Comparison of Alternative Approaches for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvements.” EPA-230-05-83-001. Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1983.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. “Ethical Preferences and the Assessment of Existence Values: Does the Neoclassical Model Fit?” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 15 (1986):145–50.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J.M. “Free Riding, Contribution Behavior, and Public Goods: The Case of the Virginia Non-game Wildlife Tax Checkoff.” Ph.D. diss., Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1990.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. “On Assessing the State of the Art of the Contingent Valuation Method of Valuing Environmental Changes.” In Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, edited by Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., and Schulze, W.D. 1986.Google Scholar
Haitovsky, Y. “Missing Data in Regression Analysis.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1 (1968):67–82.Google Scholar
Harper, C. “Rational Roots of Irrational Behavior: Discussion.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18 (1989):96–97.Google Scholar
Heberlein, T., and Baumgartner, R. “Factors Affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis of the Published Literature.” American Sociological Review 43 (1978):447–62.Google Scholar
Johnson, R.L., Bregenzer, N.S., and Shelby, B. “Contingent Valuation Formats: Dichotomous Choice versus Open-Ended Responses.” In Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory, and Applications. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Kachigan, S.K. Multivariate Statistical Analysis: A Conceptual Approach. New York: Radius Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Klecka, W.P. Discriminant Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.Google Scholar
Liu, J.T., and Smith, V.K. “Risk Communication and Attitude Change: Taiwan's National Debate Over Nuclear Power.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (1990).Google Scholar
Loomis, J.B. “Balancing Public Trust Resources of Mono Lake and Los Angeles’ Water Right: An Economic Approach.” Water Resources Bulletin 23 (1987a):1449–56.Google Scholar
Loomis, J.B. “Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimates to Aggregate Value Estimates: Current Practices and Proposed Solutions.” Land Economics 63(1987b):396–402.Google Scholar
McGuirk, A.M., Stephenson, K., and Taylor, D.B. “The Use of Tobit Analysis in the Valuation of Nonmarket Resources.” Department of Agricultural Economics SP 89–23. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1989.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
Musser, W.N., Waddington, D.G., and Shortle, J.S. “Protest Bids in Open Ended Contingent Valuation.” Paper presented at the Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association Meetings, Truro, Nova Scotia, 1990.Google Scholar
Nash, S. “What Price Nature?” BioScience 41, no. 10 (1991):677–82.Google Scholar
Opaluch, J.J., and Segerson, K. “Rational Roots of Irrational Behavior.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18, no. 2 (1989):81–95.Google Scholar
Press, S.J., and Wilson, S. “Choosing Between Logistic Regression and Discriminant Analysis.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 73 (1978):699–705.Google Scholar
Randall, A. “The Possibility of Satisfactory Benefit Estimation with Contingent Markets.” In Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, edited by Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., and Schulze, W.D. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
Reiling, S.D., Boyle, K.J., Cheng, H., and Phillips, M.L. “Contingent Valuation of a Public Program to Control Black Flies.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18, no. 2 (1989):126–34.Google Scholar
Reiling, S.D., Boyle, K.J., Phillips, M.L., and Anderson, M.W. “Temporal Reliability of Contingent Values.” Land Economics 66 (1990):128–35.Google Scholar
Rowe, R.D., and Chestnut, L.G. The Value of Visibility: Economic Theory and Applications for Air Pollution Control. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1982.Google Scholar
Sagoff, M. “Some Problems with Environmental Economics.” Environmental Ethics 10, no. 1 (1988):55–74.Google Scholar
Samples, K.C., Dixon, J.A., and Gowen, M.M. “Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation.” Land Economics 62, no. 3 (1986):306–12.Google Scholar
Seller, C., Stoll, J.R., and Chavas, J-P. “Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Non-Market Techniques.” Land Economics 61 (1985):156–75.Google Scholar
Shultz, S.D., and Luloff, A.E. “The Threat of Nonresponse Bias to Survey Research.” Journal of the Community Development Society 21, no. 2 (1990):104–16.Google Scholar
Smith, V.K., and Desvousges, W.H. “An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes.” Journal of Political Economy 95, no. 1 (1987):89–114.Google Scholar
Stephens, S.A., and Hall, J.W. “Measuring Local Policy Options: Question Order and Question Wording Effects.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Buck Hill Falls, PA, 1983.Google Scholar
Stevens, T.H., Echeverria, J., Glass, R.J., Hager, T., and More, T.A. “Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?” Land Economics 67, no. 4 (1991):390–400.Google Scholar
Sutherland, R.J., and Walsh, R.G. “Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality.” Land Economics 61, no. 3 (1985):281–91.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Thaler, R.H. “Preference Reversals.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 4, no. 2 (1990):201–11.Google Scholar
Walsh, R.G., Loomis, J.L., and Gillman, R.S. “Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness.” Land Economics 60, no. 1 (1984):14–29.Google Scholar