Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses
Article
- 79 Downloads
- 9 Citations
Abstract
Hanemann's utility difference model for the dichotomous choice contingent valuation method is modified to account for interrelationships between responses to a set of contingent valuation questions. A nonlinear seemingly unrelated regression model is presented to jointly estimate the probit models and to derive WTP from the CV responses. The model is used to test and impose restrictions derived from economic theory on the utility difference model. Mean WTP estimates for three different types of changes in the quality of California deer hunting were uniformly lower for the joint response probit model compared to a set of independent probit models.
Key words
Contingent valuation utility difference model joint dichotomous responsesPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Cameron, T. A. and M. B. Wright (1991), ‘Energy Audit Programs versus Market Incentives and Inducements to Undertake Energy Conservation Retrofits’,Natural Resources Modelling 51, 19–55.Google Scholar
- Chesher, A. (1985), ‘Score Tests for Zero Covariances in Recursive Linear Models for Grouped or Censored Data’,Journal of Econometrics 28, 291–305.Google Scholar
- Dillman, D. E. (1978),Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
- Grogger, J. (1990), ‘A Simple Test for Exogeneity in Probit, Logit, and Poisson Regression Models’,Economics Letters 33, 329–332.Google Scholar
- Guilkey, D. K. and J. L. Murphy (1993), ‘Estimation and Testing in the Random Effects Probit Model’,Journal of Econometrics 59, 301–317.Google Scholar
- Hanemann, W. M. (1984), ‘Welfare Evaluation in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses’,American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 332–341.Google Scholar
- Hoehn, J. P. (1991), ‘Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods’,American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73, 289–299.Google Scholar
- Keith, J. E. and K. S. Lyon (1985), ‘Valuing Wildlife Management: A Utab Deer Herd’,Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 10, 216–222.Google Scholar
- Krinsky, I. and A. Robb (1986), ‘Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities’,Review of Economics and Statistics 66, 715–719.Google Scholar
- Mendelsohn, R. (1984), ‘An Application of the Hedonic Travel Cost Framework for Recreation Modeling to the Valuation of Deer’, in V. K. Smith and A. D. Witte, eds.,Advances in Applied Micro-economics, Greenwich, Connecticut, JAI Press, Inc.Google Scholar
- Kiefer, J. P. (1982), ‘Testing for Dependence for Multivariate Probit Models’,Biometrika 69, 161–166.Google Scholar
- Loomis, J., M. Creel and J. Cooper (1989),Economic Benefits of Deer in California: Hunting and Viewing Values, Institute of Ecology Report #32, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
- McConnell, K. (1990), ‘Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation’,Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 19–35.Google Scholar
- McFadden, D. (1976),The Theory and Practice of Disaggregate Demand Forecasting for Various Models of Urban Transportation, Working Paper No. 7623, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, R. and R. Carson (1989),Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Morey, E., W. Shaw and R. Rowe (1991), ‘A Discrete-Choice Model of Recreational Participation, Site Choice and Activity Valuation When Complete Trip Data Are Not Available’,Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20, 181–201.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996