Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 365–383 | Cite as

Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species

  • Dixie Watts Reaves
  • Randall A. Kramer
  • Thomas P. Holmes
Article

Abstract

A three-way treatment design is used to compare contingent valuation response formats. Respondents are asked to value an endangered species (the red-cockaded woodpecker) and the restoration of its habitat following a natural disaster. For three question formats (open-ended, payment card, and double-bounded dichotomous choice), differences in survey response rates, item non-response rates, and protest bids are examined. Bootstrap techniques are used to compare means across formats and to explore differences in willingness to pay (WTP) distribution functions. Convergent validity is found in a comparison of mean WTP values, although some differences are apparent in the cumulative distribution functions. Differences across formats are also identified in item non-response rates and proportion of protest bids. Overall, the payment card format exhibits desirable properties relative to the other two formats.

contingent valuation endangered species question format red-cockaded woodpecker 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Babbie, E. (1995), The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 7th edition.Google Scholar
  2. Bowker, J. M. and J. R. Stoll (1988), ‘Use of Dichotomous Choice Nonmarket Methods to Value the Whooping Crane Resource’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 372-381.Google Scholar
  3. Boyle, K. J. and R. C. Bishop (1988), ‘Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 20-28.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, K. J., F. R. Johnson and D. W. McCollum (1997), ‘Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-bounded, Contingent Valuation Questions’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 1495-1500.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, K. J., F. R. Johnson, D. W. McCollum, W. H. Desvousges, R. W. Dunford and S. P. Hudson (1996), ‘Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses’, Land Economics 72, 381-396Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, K. J., H. F. MacDonald, H. Cheng, and D.W. McCollum (1998), ‘Bid Design and Yea-Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions’, Land Economics 74, 49-64.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, T. C., P. A. Champ, R. C. Bishop and D. W. McCollum (1996), ‘Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?’ Land Economics 72, 152-166.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, T. A. and D. Huppert (1991), ‘Referendum Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 86, 910-918.Google Scholar
  9. Cameron, T.A. and J. Quiggin (1994), ‘Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a ‘Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up’ Questionnaire’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27, 218-234.Google Scholar
  10. Carmines, E. G. and R. A. Zeller (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Carson, R. T. (1991), ‘Constructed Markets’, in J. B. Braden and C. D. Kolstad (eds.), Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Cummings, R. G., D. S. Brookshire and W. D. Schulze (eds.) (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods — An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
  13. Dalecki, M. G., J. C. Whitehead and G. C. Blomquist (1993), ‘Sample Non-response Bias and Aggregate Benefits in Contingent Valuation: an Examination of Early, Late and Non-Respondents’, Journal of Environmental Management 38, 133-143.Google Scholar
  14. Desvousges, W. H., F. R. Johnson, R. W. Dunford, K. J. Boyle, S. P. Hudson and K. N. Wilson (1993), ‘Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability’, in J. A. Hausman (ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Desvousges, W. H., V. K. Smith, D. Brown and D. K. Pate (1984), ‘The Role of Focus Groups in Designing a Contingent Valuation Survey to Measure the Benefits of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.’ Draft report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Dillman, D. A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Duffield, J. and D. Patterson (1991), ‘Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, Land Economics 67, 225-239.Google Scholar
  18. Federal Register (1993), ‘Natural Resource Damage Assessments Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990’, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 15 CFR Chapter IX. 58(10), 4601-4614. Friday, January 15.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, A. C. (1994), ‘The Conceptual Underpinnings of the Contingent Valuation Method.’ Paper presented at the DOE/EPA Workshop on Using Contingent Valuation to Measure Non-Market Values. Herndon, Virginia, May 19–20.Google Scholar
  20. Freedman, D. A. and S. C. Peters (1984), ‘Bootstrapping a Regression Equation: Some Empirical Results’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 79, 97-106.Google Scholar
  21. Greene, W. (1992), LIMDEP Version 6.0: User's Manual and Reference Guide. Bellport, New York: Econometric Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Hanemann, W. M., J. Loomis and B. Kanninen (1991), ‘Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73, 1255-1263.Google Scholar
  23. Herriges, J. A. and J. F. Shogren (1996), ‘Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-up Questioning’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 112-131.Google Scholar
  24. Holmes, T. P. and R. A. Kramer (1995), ‘An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 121-132.Google Scholar
  25. Hooper, R. G., J. C. Watson and R. E. F. Escano (1990), ‘Hurricane Hugo's initial Effects on Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in the Francis Marion National Forest’, Transactions of the Fifty-Fifth North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference.Google Scholar
  26. Huang, J. C. and V. K. Smith (1998), ‘Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods’, Land Economics 74, 186-202.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, R. L., N. S. Bregenzer and B. Shelby (1990), ‘Contingent Valuation Question Formats: Dichotomous Choice versus Open-Ended Responses’, in R. L. Johnson and G. V. Johnson (eds.), Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory, and Applications. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Chapter 12.Google Scholar
  28. Kalton, G. and D.W. Anderson (1986), ‘Sampling Rare Populations’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (A) 149, 65-82.Google Scholar
  29. Kanninen, B. J. (1995), ‘Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 114-125.Google Scholar
  30. Kealy, M. and R. W. Turner (1993), ‘A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 311-331.Google Scholar
  31. Kealy, M., M. Montgomery and J. F. Dovidio (1990), ‘Reliability and Predictive Validity of Contingent Values: Does the Nature of the Good Matter?’ Journal of Environmental Economic and Management 19, 244-263.Google Scholar
  32. Kish, L. (1965), Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Kling, C. L. and R. J. Sexton (1990), ‘Bootstrapping in Applied Welfare Analysis’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 406-418.Google Scholar
  34. Krinsky, I. and A. L. Robb (1986), ‘On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities’, The Review of Economics and Statistics 68, 715-719.Google Scholar
  35. Loomis, J. B. (1990), ‘Comparative Reliability of the Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Techniques’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 78-85.Google Scholar
  36. Loomis, J. B., T. Brown, B. Lucero and G. Peterson (1997), ‘Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation’, Environmental and Resource Economics 10, 109-123.Google Scholar
  37. Loomis, J. B., M. Lockwood and T. DeLacy (1993), ‘Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24, 45-55.Google Scholar
  38. McFadden, D. L. (1994), ‘Contingent Valuation and Social Choice’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 689-708.Google Scholar
  39. McFadden, D. L. and G. K. Leonard (1993), ‘Issues in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: Methodologies for Data Collection and Analysis’, in J. A. Hausman (ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  40. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  41. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1986), ‘Some Comments on the State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method Draft Report’, in R. C. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire and W. D. Schulze (eds.), Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
  42. Montgomery, C. A., G. M. Brown, Jr. and D. M. Adams (1994), ‘The Marginal Cost of Species Preservation: the Northern Spotted Owl’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 111-128.Google Scholar
  43. Park, T., J. B. Loomis and M. Creel (1991), ‘Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, Land Economics 67, 64-73.Google Scholar
  44. Ready, R. C., J. C. Buzby and D. Hu (1996), ‘Differences Between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates’, Land Economics 72, 397-411.Google Scholar
  45. Rowe, R. D., W. D. Schulze and W. W. Breffle (1996), ‘A Test for Payment Card Biases’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 178-185.Google Scholar
  46. Schumann, H. (1994), ‘The Sensitivity of CV Outcomes to CV Survey Methods.’ Paper presented at the DOE/EPA Workshop on Using Contingent Valuation to Measure Non-Market Values. Herndon, Virginia, May 19–20.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, V. K. and W. H. Desvousges (1986), Measuring Water Quality Benefits. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  48. Stevens, T. H., J. Echeverria, R. J. Glass, T. Hager and T.A. More (1991), ‘Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?’ Land Economics 67, 390-400.Google Scholar
  49. Sudman, S. (1972), ‘On Sampling of Very Rare Human Populations’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 67, 335-339.Google Scholar
  50. United States Bureau of the Census (1992), Statistical Abstracts of the United States.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dixie Watts Reaves
    • 1
  • Randall A. Kramer
    • 2
  • Thomas P. Holmes
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA (e-mail
  2. 2.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Southern Research Station, USDA Forest ServiceUSA

Personalised recommendations