Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Do CVM Welfare Estimates Suffer from On-Site Sampling Bias? A Comparison of On-Site and Household Visitor Surveys

  • Juan Marcos González-Sepúlveda (a1) and John B. Loomis (a2)

Abstract

The problem of endogenous stratification associated with on-site sampling has been overlooked in the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). We find that using on-site samples of visitors overstates visitor willingness to pay (WTP) estimates relative to a household sample of visitors, and substantially overstates the unconditional population values. We provide two methods of correcting WTP of on-site samples. The uncorrected on-site sample CVM yields WTP of $132 per trip, while visitor WTP obtained from a random sample of households had a value of $66 per trip. Adaptation of choice-based sampling correction estimator to the on-site CVM data yields $73 per trip, not statistically different from the visitor value from the household survey, but significantly different from the uncorrected on-site sample value.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Bhat, M.G. 2003. “Application of Non-Market Valuation to the Florida Keys Marine Reserve Management.Journal of Environmental Management 67(4): 315325.
Chase, L.C., Lee, D.R., Schulze, W.D., and Anderson, D.J. 1998. “Ecotourism Demand and Differential Pricing of National Park Access in Costa Rica.Land Economics 74(4): 466482.
Creel, M., and Loomis, J. 1990. “Theoretical and Empirical Advantages of Truncated Count Data Estimating for Analysis of Deer Hunting in California.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(4): 434441.
Englin, J., and Shonkwiler, J.S. 1995. “Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand Under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation.Review of Economics and Statistics 77(1): 104112.
Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric Analysis (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Haab, T. 1999. “Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.Environmental and Resource Economics 14(4): 443461.
Heckman, J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as Specification Error.Econometrica 47(1): 153161.
Loomis, J. 2003. “Travel Cost Demand Model Based River Recreation Benefit Estimates with On-Site and Household Surveys: Comparative Results and a Correction Procedure.Water Resources Research 39(4): 11051108.
Manski, C., and Lerman, S. 1977. “The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples.Econometrica 45(8): 19771988.
Martinez-Espineira, R., Amoako-Tuffour, J., and Hilbe, J. 2006. “Travel Cost Demand Model Based Recreation Benefit Estimates with On-Site and Household Surveys: Comparative Results and a Correction Procedure: Reevaluation.Water Resources Research 42 (doi:10.1029/2005WR004798).
McFadden, D., and Reid, F. 1975. “Aggregate Travel Demand Forecasting from Disaggregate Behavioral Models.Transportation Research Record 534(1): 2437.
Moeltner, K., and Shonkwiler, J.S. 2005. “Correcting for On-Site Sampling in Random Utility Models.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 327339.
Nowell, C., Evans, M.A., and McDonald, L. 1988. “Length-Biased Sampling in Contingent Valuation Studies.Land Economics 64(4): 367371.
Poe, G.L., Giraud, K.L., and Loomis, J.B. 2005. “Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 353365.
Shaw, D. 1988. “On-Site Samples Regression: Problems of Non Negative Integers, Truncation and Endogenous Stratification.Journal of Econometrics 37(2): 211223.
Westin, R. 1974. “Predictions from Binary Choice Models.Journal of Econometrics 2(1): 116.
Whitehead, J., Groothuis, P., and Blomquist, G. 1993. “Testing for Non-Response and Sample Selection Bias in Contingent Valuation.Economic Letters 41(2): 215230.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Do CVM Welfare Estimates Suffer from On-Site Sampling Bias? A Comparison of On-Site and Household Visitor Surveys

  • Juan Marcos González-Sepúlveda (a1) and John B. Loomis (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.