The Experts below are selected from a list of 24927 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Richard T Carson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Contingent Valuation flawed logic response
Science, 2017Co-Authors: Richard C Bishop, Richard T Carson, Barbara Kanninen, Raymond J. Kopp, Kevin J Boyle, Michael W Hanemann, David J Chapman, Jon A Krosnick, John A List, Norman F MeadeAbstract:Baron questions the methods and conclusions of our Contingent Valuation study, which assessed the economic value to the American public of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In the study, survey respondents were each randomly assigned to be told about either (i) a set of effects of the oil
-
Contingent Valuation a practical alternative when prices aren t available
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2012Co-Authors: Richard T CarsonAbstract:A person may be willing to make an economic tradeoff to assure that a wilderness area or scenic resource is protected even if neither that person nor (perhaps) anyone else will actually visit this area. This tradeoff is commonly labeled "passive use value." Contingent Valuation studies ask questions that help to reveal the monetary tradeoff each person would make concerning the value of goods or services. Such surveys are a practical alternative approach for eliciting the value of public goods, including those with passive use considerations. First I discuss the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989, focusing on why it is important to measure monetary tradeoffs for goods where passive use considerations loom large. Although discussions of Contingent Valuation often focus on whether the method is sufficiently reliable for use in assessing natural resource damages in lawsuits, it is important to remember that most estimates from Contingent Valuation studies are used in benefit–cost assessments, not natural resource damage assessments. Those working on benefit–cost analysis have long recognized that goods and impacts that cannot be quantified are valued, implicitly, by giving them a limitless value when government regulations preclude certain activities, or giving them a value of zero by leaving certain consequences out of the analysis. Contingent Valuation offers a practical alternative for reducing the use of either of these extreme choices. I put forward an affirmative case for Contingent Valuation and address a number of the concerns that have arisen.
-
Contingent Valuation a comprehensive bibliography and history
2012Co-Authors: Richard T CarsonAbstract:Contents: 1. Preface 2. The Historical Development of Contingent Valuation 3. Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Papers and Studies 4. Appendices on Book's Website a. Bibliography as a Word Document b. Bibliography as a Citation Database c. Bibliography as an Endnote Database d. Bibliography as a Refman Database e. Bibliography as a RIS Formated Text File f. Bibliography as a BibTex Formated Text File g. Bibliography as a Refer Formated Text File
-
modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice Contingent Valuation data
2008Co-Authors: Anna Alberini, Barbara Kanninen, Richard T CarsonAbstract:This paper introduces model specifications that can be used to explain response incentive effects that might occur with discrete response Contingent Valuation data when follow-up responses are collected. The models allow for possible random response shocks, structural shifts in willingness to pay between payment questions and heteroskedasticity between and within responses. Three well-known Contingent Valuation survey datasets that include follow-up payment questions are used to empirically test the models.
-
chapter 17 Contingent Valuation
Handbook of Environmental Economics, 2005Co-Authors: Richard T Carson, Michael W HanemannAbstract:Abstract Value estimates for environmental goods can be obtained by either estimating preference parameters as “revealed” through behavior related to some aspect of the amenity or using “stated” information concerning preferences for the good. In the environmental economics literature the stated preference approach has come to be known as “Contingent Valuation” as the “Valuation” estimated obtained from preference information given the respondent is said to be “Contingent” on the details of the “constructed market” for the environmental good put forth in the survey. Work on Contingent Valuation now typically comprises the largest single group of papers at major environmental economics conferences and in several of the leading journals in the field. As such, it is impossible to “review” the literature per se or even cover all of the major papers in the area in some detail. Instead, in this chapter we seek to provide a coherent overview of the main issues and how they fit together. The organization of the chapter is as follows. First, we provide an overview of the history of Contingent Valuation starting with its antecedents and foundational papers and then trace its subsequent development using several broad themes. Second, we put forth the theoretical foundations of Contingent Valuation with particular emphasis on ties to standard measures of economic welfare. Third, we look at the issue of existence/passive use considerations. Fourth, we consider the relationship of Contingent Valuation to information on preferences that can be obtained by observing revealed behavior and how the two sources of information might be combined. Fifth, we look at different ways in which preference information can be elicited in a CV survey, paying particular attention to the incentive structure posed by different elicitation formats. Sixth, we turn to econometric issues associated with these different elicitation formats. Seventh, we briefly consider survey design issues. Eighth, we look at issues related to survey administration and extrapolating the results obtained to the population of interest. Ninth, we describe the major controversies related to the use of Contingent Valuation and summarize the evidence. Finally, we provide some thoughts on where we think Contingent Valuation is headed in the future.
Bernard Van Den Berg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
individual responsibility and health risk behaviour a Contingent Valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective
Health Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Sanne M Van Der Star, Bernard Van Den BergAbstract:This study analyzes peoples' social preferences for individual responsibility to health-risk behaviour in health care using the Contingent Valuation method adopting a societal perspective. We measure peoples' willingness to pay for inclusion of a treatment in basic health insurance of a hypothetical lifestyle dependent (smoking) and lifestyle independent (chronic) health problem. Our hypothesis is that peoples' willingness to pay for the independent and the dependent health problems are similar. As a methodological challenge, this study also analyzes the extent to which people consider their personal situation when answering Contingent Valuation questions adopting a societal perspective. 513 Dutch inhabitants responded to the questionnaire. They were asked to state their maximum willingness to pay for inclusion of treatments in basic health insurance package for two health problems. We asked them to assume that one hypothetical health problem was totally independent of behaviour (for simplicity called chronic disease). Alternatively, we asked them to assume that the other hypothetical health problem was totally caused by health-risk behaviour (for simplicity called smoking disease). We applied the payment card method to guide respondents to answer the Contingent Valuation method questions. Mean willingness to pay was 42.39 Euros (CI = 37.24-47.55) for inclusion of treatment for health problem that was unrelated to behaviour, with '5-10' and '10-20 Euros' as most frequently stated answers. In contrast, mean willingness to pay for inclusion treatment for health-risk related problem was 11.29 Euros (CI = 8.83-14.55), with '0' and '0-5 Euros' as most frequently provided answers. Difference in mean willingness to pay was substantial (over 30 Euros) and statistically significant (p-value = 0.000). Smokers were statistically significantly more (p-valueÂ
-
individual responsibility and health risk behaviour a Contingent Valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective
Health Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Sanne M Van Der Star, Bernard Van Den BergAbstract:This study analyzes peoples' social preferences for individual responsibility to health-risk behaviour in health care using the Contingent Valuation method adopting a societal perspective. We measure peoples' willingness to pay for inclusion of a treatment in basic health insurance of a hypothetical lifestyle dependent (smoking) and lifestyle independent (chronic) health problem. Our hypothesis is that peoples' willingness to pay for the independent and the dependent health problems are similar. As a methodological challenge, this study also analyzes the extent to which people consider their personal situation when answering Contingent Valuation questions adopting a societal perspective. 513 Dutch inhabitants responded to the questionnaire. They were asked to state their maximum willingness to pay for inclusion of treatments in basic health insurance package for two health problems. We asked them to assume that one hypothetical health problem was totally independent of behaviour (for simplicity called chronic disease). Alternatively, we asked them to assume that the other hypothetical health problem was totally caused by health-risk behaviour (for simplicity called smoking disease). We applied the payment card method to guide respondents to answer the Contingent Valuation method questions. Mean willingness to pay was 42.39 Euros (CI=37.24-47.55) for inclusion of treatment for health problem that was unrelated to behaviour, with '5-10' and '10-20 Euros' as most frequently stated answers. In contrast, mean willingness to pay for inclusion treatment for health-risk related problem was 11.29 Euros (CI=8.83-14.55), with '0' and '0-5 Euros' as most frequently provided answers. Difference in mean willingness to pay was substantial (over 30 Euros) and statistically significant (p-value=0.000). Smokers were statistically significantly more (p-value<0.01) willing to pay for the health-risk related (smoking) problem compared with non-smokers, while people with chronic condition were not willing to pay more for the health-risk unrelated (chronic) problem than people without chronic condition. This suggests that sub groups of people might differ in terms of abstracting from their personal situation when answering Valuation questions from a societal perspective.
Barbara Kanninen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Contingent Valuation flawed logic response
Science, 2017Co-Authors: Richard C Bishop, Richard T Carson, Barbara Kanninen, Raymond J. Kopp, Kevin J Boyle, Michael W Hanemann, David J Chapman, Jon A Krosnick, John A List, Norman F MeadeAbstract:Baron questions the methods and conclusions of our Contingent Valuation study, which assessed the economic value to the American public of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In the study, survey respondents were each randomly assigned to be told about either (i) a set of effects of the oil
-
modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice Contingent Valuation data
2008Co-Authors: Anna Alberini, Barbara Kanninen, Richard T CarsonAbstract:This paper introduces model specifications that can be used to explain response incentive effects that might occur with discrete response Contingent Valuation data when follow-up responses are collected. The models allow for possible random response shocks, structural shifts in willingness to pay between payment questions and heteroskedasticity between and within responses. Three well-known Contingent Valuation survey datasets that include follow-up payment questions are used to empirically test the models.
-
modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice Contingent Valuation data
Land Economics, 1997Co-Authors: Anna Alberini, Barbara Kanninen, Richard T CarsonAbstract:This paper introduces model specifications that can be used to explain response incentive effects that might occur with discrete response Contingent Valuation data when follow-up responses are collected. The models allowfor possible random response shocks, structural ships in willingness to pay betweenpayment questionsand heteroskedasticity between and within responses. Three well-known Contingent Valuation survey datasets that include follow-up payment questions are used to empirically test the models. (JEL C33, C35)
-
bias in discrete response Contingent Valuation
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1995Co-Authors: Barbara KanninenAbstract:Abstract The empirical literature on discrete response Contingent Valuation has found that seemingly innocuous changes in the statistical models estimated result in significantly different point estimates of willingness to pay. This paper hypothesizes and tests several potential explanations for these results. First it investigates and compares the biases inherent in single-bounded and double-bounded maximum likelihood estimation procedures and examines how they react to various bid designs and sample sizes. Then it examines the presence and identification of "outliers" in binary choice data and how these outliers influence estimation. Finally, it presents an alternative approach to addressing the issue of outliers which explicitly acknowledges the possibility of upwardly biased response probabilities.
-
Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1991Co-Authors: W. Michael Hanemann, John B. Loomis, Barbara KanninenAbstract:The statistical efficiency of conventional dichotomous choice Contingent Valuation surveys can be improved by asking each respondent a second dichotomous choice question which depends on the response to the first question—if the first response is "yes," the second bid is some amount greater than the first bid; while, if the first response is "no," the second bid is some amount smaller. This "double-bounded" approach is shown to be asymptotically more efficient than the conventional, "singlebounded" approach. Using data from a survey of Californians regarding their willingness to pay for wetlands in the San Joaquin Valley, we show that, in a finite sample, the gain in efficiency can be very substantial.
Sanne M Van Der Star - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
individual responsibility and health risk behaviour a Contingent Valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective
Health Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Sanne M Van Der Star, Bernard Van Den BergAbstract:This study analyzes peoples' social preferences for individual responsibility to health-risk behaviour in health care using the Contingent Valuation method adopting a societal perspective. We measure peoples' willingness to pay for inclusion of a treatment in basic health insurance of a hypothetical lifestyle dependent (smoking) and lifestyle independent (chronic) health problem. Our hypothesis is that peoples' willingness to pay for the independent and the dependent health problems are similar. As a methodological challenge, this study also analyzes the extent to which people consider their personal situation when answering Contingent Valuation questions adopting a societal perspective. 513 Dutch inhabitants responded to the questionnaire. They were asked to state their maximum willingness to pay for inclusion of treatments in basic health insurance package for two health problems. We asked them to assume that one hypothetical health problem was totally independent of behaviour (for simplicity called chronic disease). Alternatively, we asked them to assume that the other hypothetical health problem was totally caused by health-risk behaviour (for simplicity called smoking disease). We applied the payment card method to guide respondents to answer the Contingent Valuation method questions. Mean willingness to pay was 42.39 Euros (CI = 37.24-47.55) for inclusion of treatment for health problem that was unrelated to behaviour, with '5-10' and '10-20 Euros' as most frequently stated answers. In contrast, mean willingness to pay for inclusion treatment for health-risk related problem was 11.29 Euros (CI = 8.83-14.55), with '0' and '0-5 Euros' as most frequently provided answers. Difference in mean willingness to pay was substantial (over 30 Euros) and statistically significant (p-value = 0.000). Smokers were statistically significantly more (p-valueÂ
-
individual responsibility and health risk behaviour a Contingent Valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective
Health Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Sanne M Van Der Star, Bernard Van Den BergAbstract:This study analyzes peoples' social preferences for individual responsibility to health-risk behaviour in health care using the Contingent Valuation method adopting a societal perspective. We measure peoples' willingness to pay for inclusion of a treatment in basic health insurance of a hypothetical lifestyle dependent (smoking) and lifestyle independent (chronic) health problem. Our hypothesis is that peoples' willingness to pay for the independent and the dependent health problems are similar. As a methodological challenge, this study also analyzes the extent to which people consider their personal situation when answering Contingent Valuation questions adopting a societal perspective. 513 Dutch inhabitants responded to the questionnaire. They were asked to state their maximum willingness to pay for inclusion of treatments in basic health insurance package for two health problems. We asked them to assume that one hypothetical health problem was totally independent of behaviour (for simplicity called chronic disease). Alternatively, we asked them to assume that the other hypothetical health problem was totally caused by health-risk behaviour (for simplicity called smoking disease). We applied the payment card method to guide respondents to answer the Contingent Valuation method questions. Mean willingness to pay was 42.39 Euros (CI=37.24-47.55) for inclusion of treatment for health problem that was unrelated to behaviour, with '5-10' and '10-20 Euros' as most frequently stated answers. In contrast, mean willingness to pay for inclusion treatment for health-risk related problem was 11.29 Euros (CI=8.83-14.55), with '0' and '0-5 Euros' as most frequently provided answers. Difference in mean willingness to pay was substantial (over 30 Euros) and statistically significant (p-value=0.000). Smokers were statistically significantly more (p-value<0.01) willing to pay for the health-risk related (smoking) problem compared with non-smokers, while people with chronic condition were not willing to pay more for the health-risk unrelated (chronic) problem than people without chronic condition. This suggests that sub groups of people might differ in terms of abstracting from their personal situation when answering Valuation questions from a societal perspective.
Dale Whittington - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
improving the performance of Contingent Valuation studies in developing countries
Research Papers in Economics, 2007Co-Authors: Dale WhittingtonAbstract:This paper discusses three main reasons why so many of the Contingent Valuation studies conducted in developing countries are so bad. First, the Contingent Valuation surveys themselves are often poorly administered and executed. Second, Contingent Valuation scenarios are often very poorly crafted. Third, few CV studies conducted in developing countries are designed to test whether some of the key assumptions that the reseacher made were the right ones, and whether the results are robust with respect to simple variations in research design and survey method. The paper concludes that research on stated preference methods in developing countries is critically important to the successfull implementation of these methods because (1) there is no empirical evidence to suggest that rapid, "streamlined" CV surveys yield reliable, accurate results, and (2) there is a significant risk that the current pust for cheaper, simpler CV studies could discredit the methodology itself. Moreover, the policy debates to which CV researchers are asked to contribute are often of tremendous importance to the well-being of households in developing countries. Because the costs of policy mistakes can prove tragic, it is critical that CV researchers push for excellence in this research enterprise and that funding agencies think more carefully about the value of policy-relevant information in the fields in which the Contingent Valuation method is being used to study household preferences and behavior (e.g., water and sanitation services, urban air pollution, soil erosion, deforestation, biodiversity, watershed management, ecosystem Valuation, vaccines for the poor).
-
administering Contingent Valuation surveys in developing countries
World Development, 1998Co-Authors: Dale WhittingtonAbstract:Abstract Ten years ago only a handful of very rudimentary Contingent Valuation (CV) studies had been conducted in developing countries; at that time the problems associated with posing hypothetical questions to low-income, perhaps illiterate respondents were assumed to be so overwhelming that one should not even try. Today it is now assumed by many environmental and resource economists and policy analysts working in developing countries that Contingent Valuation surveys are straightforward and easy to do. This paper examines some of the issues that have arisen and some of the lessons learned over the last 10 years about administering Contingent Valuation surveys in developing countries. The paper focuses on five issues in particular. 1. (a) explaining to enumerators what a Contingent Valuation study is all about; 2. (b) interpreting responses to Contingent Valuation questions; 3. (c) setting referendum prices; 4. (d) constructing joint public-private CV scenarios; 5. (e) ethical problems in conducting such surveys. It is argued that there are numerous issues that arise in Contingent Valuation work in developing countries that demand careful attention, but that in many respects it is easier to do high-quality Contingent Valuation surveys in developing countries than in industrialized countries.
-
administering Contingent Valuation surveys in developing countries
Research Papers in Economics, 1996Co-Authors: Dale WhittingtonAbstract:In this paper I discuss some of the issues that have arisen and some of the lessons learned over the last ten years about administering CV surveys in developing countries. The discussion is organized around five distinct issues: (1) ethical problems in conducting Contingent Valuation surveys; (2) explaining what a Contingent Valuation study is all about; (3) interpreting responses to Contingent Valuation questions; (4) setting referendum prices; and (5) constructing joint public-private CV scenarios. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but it will hopefully provide the reader with insights into some of the issues involving in conducting CV surveys in developing countries.
