Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:54:06.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Issues in Continuous- and Discrete-Response Contingent Valuation Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

W. Michael Hanemann
W. Michael Hanemann*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Extract

I want to begin with a caveat. I have no training in psychology, and my interest in the field is that of an amateur. Thus, the confidence with which I shall make statements about psychological facts is in inverse proportion to my expertise. My point of departure is the assumption that the most serious problem with contingent valuation (CV) methodology is hypothetical bias. Apart from introspection, the evidence for this assumption comes from two classic studies conducted by Richard Bishop and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin. The first study by Bishop and Heberlein (1979) involved a survey of two random samples of individuals who had obtained permits to hunt ducks in the Horizon Zone of East Central Wisconsin. One sample group was asked the hypothetical question whether they would be willing to sell their permit for a specified sum of money (this sum differed among individuals). The other sample group was given a real opportunity to sell their permit for a specified sum of money; of 237 hunters surveyed, 105 actually sold their permits.

Type
Research Article
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , April 1985 , pp. 5 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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

Giannini Foundation Paper No. 322 (reprint identification only).

References

Bishop, R. C., and Heberlein, T. A. “Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (1979):926–30.Google Scholar
Boyle, K. J., Bishop, R. C., and Welsh, M. P. “Is Starting Point Bias a Problem in the Iterative Bidding Format of Contingent Valuation Studies.” Land Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Carson, R. T., Casterline, G. L., and Mitchell, R. C. “A Note on Testing and Correcting for Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Discussion Paper D-116, Quality of the Environment Division, Resources for the Future, January 1984.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
Rowe, R. D., d’Arge, R. C., and Brookshire, D. S. “An Experiment in the Value of Visibility.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7 (1980):1–19.Google Scholar
Thayer, M. A. “Contingent Valuation Techniques for Assessing Environmental Impacts: Further Evidence.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8 (1981):27–43.Google Scholar