Abstract
This article develops a latent class model for estimating willingness-to-pay (WTP) for public goods using simultaneously contingent valuation (CV) and attitudinal data to identify individuals with similar characteristics, such as WTP and protest attitudes. We find evidence that the answer to the CV question influences the responses to the attitudinal questions. In our case, this influence reflects rational behavior (budget constraint issues) and justification biases related to protest reasons, such as lack of trust in institutions or fairness issues with respect to the distribution of the burden of preservation. The results from our empirical application confirm the importance of accounting for those biases.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Au D, Crossley TF, Schellhorn M (2005) The effect of health changes and long-term health on the work activity of older Canadians. Health Econ 10: 999–1018
Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce D, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated-preference techniques.. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Ben-Akiva M, Walker J, Bernardino A, Gopinath D, Morikawa T, Polydoropoulou A (2002) Integration of choice and latent variable models. In: Mahmassani H (eds) In perpetual motion: travel behaviour research opportunities and application challenges. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 431–470
Bestard A, Riera Font A, Hicks R (2010) Combining discrete and continuous representations of preference heterogeneity: a latent-class approach. Environ Resour Econ 47(4): 477–493
Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York
Bonnichsen O, Ladenburg J (2009) Using an ex-ante entreatry to reduce protest zero bias in stated preference surveys: a health economic case. J Choice Model 2(2): 83–98
Bound J (1991) Self-reported versus objective measures of health in retirement models. J Hum Resour 26: 106–138
Bonnichsen O, Ladenburg J (2010) Reducing status-quo bias in choice experiments: an application to a protest reduction entreatry. FOI working paper, no. 7, Institute of Food and Resource Economics, LIFE, University of Copenhagen
Breffle W, Morey E, Thacher J (2011) A joint latent class model: combining likert-scale preference statements with choice data to harvest preference heterogeneity. Environ Resour Econ 50: 83–110
Brouwer R, Martin-Ortega J (forthcoming) Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability. Resour Energy Econ
Calia P, Strazzera E (2001) A sample selection model for protest votes in contingent valuation studies. Statistica 61(3): 473–485
Cameron A, Trivedi P (2005) Microeconometrics: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York
Carson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 31: 181–210
Carson R, Mitchell R, Hanemann M, Kopp R, Presser S, Ruud P (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25: 257–286
Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc Ser B 39: 1–38
Dziegielewska D, Mendelsohn R (2007) Does “No” means “No”? A protest methodology. Environ Resour Econ 38: 71–87
Gradstein M (2008) Institutional traps and economic growth. Int Econ Rev 49: 1043–1066
Haab T, McConnell K (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources. Edward Elgar, UK
Herriges J, Kling C, Liu C-C-C, Tobias J (2010) What are the consequences of consequentiality?. J Environ Econ Manage 59(1): 67–81
Jakobsson K, Dragun A (2001) The worth of a possum: valuing species with the contingent valuation method. Environ Resour Econ 19: 211–227
Jorgensen B, Syme G, Bishop B (1999) Nancarrow B protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14(1): 131–150
Jorgensen B, Syme G (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for storm water pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33(2): 251–265
Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2005) Governance matters IV: governance responses to the attitudinal questions for 1996–2004. mimeo, World Bank, Washington
Lo Y, Mendell NR, Rubin DB (2001) Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika 88: 767–778
Martin-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007) Influence of user characteristics on valuation of ecosystem services in Donana natural protected Area (south-west Spain). Environ Conserv 34(3): 215–224
McLachlan GJ, Peel D (2000) Finite mixture models. Wiley, New York
Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2006) Protest responses in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecol Econ 57: 583–594
Meyerhoff J, Bartczak A, Liebe U (2009) Identifying various types of protesters in contingent valuation using latent class analysis. Working paper on Management in Environmental Planning 27/200
Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2008) Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?. Environ Resour Econ 39: 433–446
Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2009) Status-quo effects in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity?. Land Econ 85(3): 515–528
Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2010) Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: a meta-study. Ecol Econ 70: 366–374
Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington
Morey E, Thacher J, Breffle W (2006) Using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: a latent-class model. Environ Resour Econ 34: 91–115
Morey E, Thiene M, De Salvo M, Signorello G (2008) Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation. Ecol Econ 68: 536–546
Morkbak MR, Olsen S, Meyerhoff J (2010) A meta-study investigating the sources of protest behavior in stated preference surveys. Paper presented at the 4th World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Montreal, Canada
Polydoropoulou A, Gopinath D, Ben-Akiva M (1997) Willingness to pay for advanced traveler information system. Transp Res Record 1588: 44–48
Morrison M, Blamey R, Bennett J (2000) Minimizing payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resour Econ 16: 407–422
Provencher B, Baerenklau K, Bishop R (2002) A finite mixture logit model of recreational angling with serially correlated random utility. Am J Agric Econ 844: 1066–1075
Scarpa R, Thiene M (2005) Destination choice models for rock climbing in the north-east alpes: a latent class approach based on a intensity of participation. Land Econ 81(3): 426–444
Scarpa R, Beharry-Borg N (2010) Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors. Ecol Econ 69: 1124–1139
Scarpa R, Gilbride TJ, Campbell D, Hensher DA (2009) Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 36(2): 151–174
Soderqvist T (1998) Why give up money for the Baltic Sea?. Environ Resour Econ 12: 249–254
Strazzera E, Genius M, Scarpa R, Hutchinson G (2003) The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites. Environ Resour Econ 25: 461–476
Walker J, Li J (2007) Latent lifestyle preferences and household location decisions. J Geograph Syst 9(1): 77–101
Whitehead J, Groothuis P, Blomquist G (1993) Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation. Econ Lett 41: 215–220
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We gratefully acknowledge the comments by all anonymous referees that helped to improve the paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cunha-e-Sá, M.A., Madureira, L., Nunes, L.C. et al. Protesting and Justifying: A Latent Class Model for Contingent Valuation with Attitudinal Data. Environ Resource Econ 52, 531–548 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9541-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9541-3