Repeated Dichotomous Choice Formats for Elicitation of Willingness to Pay: Simultaneous Estimation and Anchoring Effect
- 217 Downloads
Repeated dichotomous choice contingent valuation data are generated from responses to a succession of binary questions regarding alternative prices for an environmental good. In this paper we propose a simultaneous equation model that allows for endogeneity and error correlation across the responses at each stage of the bidding process. The model allows us to study the evolution of anchoring effects after the second dichotomous choice question. Estimation involves the Bayesian techniques of Gibbs sampling and data augmentation, and the application focuses on the preservation value of a natural area. The results for a data set involving up to four successive dichotomous choice questions show that restricted multiple-bounded models are rejected by the data with the general model. In addition, willingness to pay tends to stabilize after the second stage in the elicitation process for the general unrestricted model. When taking anchoring effects into consideration, it is revealed that individuals’ responses in the latter stages are influenced by the sequence of bid prices offered in earlier questions. Nevertheless, they do not have a significant effect on welfare estimates.
Keywordsanchoring effects Bayesian methods contingent valuation endogeneity repeated dichotomous choice simultaneous equations
Econlit descritptorsC110 C250 Q510 D120
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
The authors would like to thank the support by projects BEC2000-0435, VEM2004-08558 and SEJ2005-09276 of the Spanish Ministry of Education and useful comments by three anonymous referees. The usual disclaimer applies.
- Araña J. E., León C. J. (2005b). Bayesian Estimation of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation with Follow-Up. In: Scarpa R., Alberini A. (eds), Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental Resource Economics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, SpringerGoogle Scholar
- Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leamer E., Radner R., Schuman H. (1993). Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58:4602–4614Google Scholar
- Bateman, I. J., D. Burgess, W. G. Hutchinson and D. I. Matthews (2004), ‚Learning Effects in Repeated Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions’, Paper presented at the Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2004 Google Scholar
- Carson, R., T. Groves and M. Machina (1999), ‚Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions’, Plenary Address to the European Association of Resource and Environmental Economists, Oslo, Norway, JuneGoogle Scholar
- Cooper, J. C. and W. M. Hanemann (1995), ‚Referendum Contingent Valuation: How Many Bounds Are Enough?', USDA Economic Research Service, Food and Consumer Economics Division, Working Paper. May, 1995Google Scholar
- Grether D. M., Plott C. R. (1979). Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon. American Economic Review 69:623–638Google Scholar
- Greene, W. H. (2003), Econometric Analysis, 5th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
- Hanemann, W. M. and B. Kanninen (1999), ‚The Statistical Analysis of Discrete-Response’, in I. Bateman and K. Willis, eds., Valuing the Environment Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EC and Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Huber, J. an K. Train (2001), ‘On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths’, Marketing Letters 12(3), 259–269Google Scholar
- Kochi, I., B. Hubbell and R. Kramer (2006), ‚An Empirical Bayes Approach to Combining and Comparing Estimates of the Value of a Statistical Life for Environmental Policy Analysis’, Environmental and Resource Economics 34(3), 385–406Google Scholar
- Langford I. H., Bateman I. J., Langford H. D. (1996). A Multilevel Modelling Approach to Triple-bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 7(3):197–211Google Scholar
- Layton D. F., Levine R. (2005). Bayesian Approaches to Modeling Stated Preference Data. In: Scarpa R., Alberini A. (eds), Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, SpringerGoogle Scholar
- Lindley, D. V. (1965), Introduction to Probability and Statistics from a Bayesian Viewpoint. Vol. 1: Probability, Vol. 2: Inference, Cambridege: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Tversky A., Slovic P., Kahneman D. (1990). The Causes of Preference Reversal. American Economic Review 80(1):204–217Google Scholar
- Zellner A. (1971). Introduction to Bayesian Inference in Econometrics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar