Skip to main content
Log in

Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper has four purposes. First, we outline the controversy surroundingthe issue of negative willingness to pay (WTP)in contingent valuation (CV) studies. Second,we use Monte Carlo simulation to examine theperformance of alternative distributionalassumptions in estimating WTP in the presenceof varying proportions of the populationholding negative WTP values. We focus ondichotomous choice CV (DC-CV), where negativeWTP values may be especially difficult todetect. Third, we extend the simulation toinvestigate the performance of the mixturemodels that have recently been proposed forhandling/identifying non-positive WTP values. Fourth, we extend the simulation to investigatethe performance of the nonparametric lowerbound Turnbull approach. Results indicate thatthe relative performance of the DC-CV modelingalternatives evaluated here, which assumepositive WTP, varies across the simulationsetting (e.g., proportion of negative WTP); butnone can be said to reasonably ``solve'' theproblem ex post. This underscores theimportance of ex ante efforts to identify ifnegative WTP is likely to be prominent in agiven valuation setting. In such cases,appropriately handling negative WTP must beaddressed through ex ante survey design andmodeling choices that allow negative WTP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Alberini, A. (1995), ‘Testing Willingness to Pay Models of Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Data’, Land Economics 71, 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I., I. Langford, K. Turner, K. Willis and G. Garrod (1995), ‘Elicitation and Truncation Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies’, Ecological Economics 12, 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrens, R., A. Bohara and J. Kerkvliet (1997), ‘A Randomized Response Approach to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 275–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrens, R., D. Brookshire, P. Ganderton and M. McKee (1998), ‘Exploring the Nonmarket Social Impacts of Environmental Policy Change’, Resource and Energy Economics 19, 117–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrens, R., P. Ganderton and C. Silva (1996), ‘Valuing the Protection of Minimum Instream Flows in New Mexico’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21, 294–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, M. and J. Stoll (1988), ‘Use of Dichotomous Choice Nonmarket Methods to Value the Whooping Crane Resource’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 372–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K., M. Welsh and R. Bishop (1986), ‘Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change’, Land Economics 64, 94–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. and J. Englin (1997), ‘Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 296–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. and M. James (1987), ‘Efficient Estimation Methods for Close-Ended Contingent Valuation Surveys’, Review of Economics and Statistics 69, 269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. 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 

  • Cameron, T. and J. Quiggin (1998), ‘Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from “Dichotomous Choice with Follow-up” Questionnaire: Reply’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35, 195–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, S. Presser and P. Rund (1992), A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Anchorage, AK: Report for the Attorney General of the State of Alaska.

  • Carson, R. T., W.M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Rund, V. K. Smith, M. Conaway and K. Martin (1998), ‘AReferendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA-Panel's No-Vote Recommendation’, Review of Economics and Statistics 80, 335–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle, E. and R. Berrens (1993), ‘Economic Analysis, Endangered Species and the Safe Minimum Standard’, Northwest Environmental Journal 9, 108–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle, E., R. Berrens and R. Adams (1994), ‘Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Speculations about a Missing Perspective’, Land Economics 70, 378–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, D. (1998), ‘The Return of the Grey Wolf’, National Geographic 193, 145–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, C., T. Mapp, M. Ryan and K. Curtin (1996), ‘Estimating the Economic Benefits of Avoiding Food-Borne Risk: Is Willingness to Pay Feasible’, Epidemiology and Infection 116, 285–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, J. (1993), An Economic Analysis of Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone Park: Visitor Attitudes and Values, Department of Economics. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ekstrand, E. and J. Loomis (1998), ‘Incorporating Respondent Uncertainty when EstimatingWillingness to Pay for Protecting Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Fish’, Water Resources Research 34, 3149–3155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elnagheeb, A. and J. Jordan (1995), ‘Comparing Three Approaches that Generate Bids for the Referendum Contingent Valuation Method’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 92–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. (1997), Econometric Analysis, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haab, T. and K. McConnell (1997), ‘Alternative Methods for Handling Negative Willingness to Pay in Referendum Models’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32, 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haab, T. and K. McConnell (1998), ‘Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay’, Land Economics 74, 216–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W. H. and B. Kanninen (1999), ‘The Statistical Analysis of Discrete-Response CV Data’, in I. Bateman and K. Willis, eds., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EC and Developing Countries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J., ed. (1993), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. New York: North Holland.

  • Hoobyar, P. (1999). ‘Tensions Rise as Fishing Resumes for Coho off Oregon Coast’, Restoration. Oregon Sea Grant Publication, Spring: 1–4. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson, K. and A. Dragun (1996), Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, J., C. Fawson and V. Johnson (1996), ‘Preservation or Use: A Contingent Valuation Study of Wilderness Preservation in Utah’, Ecological Economics 18, 207–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristrom, B. (1997), ‘Spike Models in Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 1013–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, M., J. Loomis and T. DeLacy. (1994), ‘The Relative Unimportance of Non-market Willingness to Pay for Timber Harvesting’, Ecological Economics 9, 145–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, M., P. Tracey and N. Klomp (1996), ‘Analyzing Conflict between Cultural Heritage and Nature Conservation in the Australian Alps: A CVM Approach’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39, 357–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. and E. Ekstrand (1998), ‘Alternative Approaches for Incorporating Respondent Uncertainty when Estimating Willingness to Pay: The Case of the Mexican Spotted Owl’, Ecological Economics 27, 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, K. and F. R. Johnson (1999), ‘Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't: Nonuse Stated Preferences in Salmon Preservation Policy’, Technical Working Paper #T9903. North Carolina: Triangle Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. (1994), ‘The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care’, Journal of Economics Perspectives 8, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, D. and R. Nelson (1992), ‘Why Existence Values Should Not Be Used in Cost-Benefit Analysis’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11, 116–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, M. (1999), ‘Allowing for Zeros in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent-Valuation Models’, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 17, 479–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. (1999), ‘Wolves, Politics and the Nez Perce:Wolf Recovery in Central Idaho and the Role of Native Tribes’, Natural Resources Journal 39, 543–564.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bohara, A.K., Kerkvliet, J. & Berrens, R.P. Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 20, 173–195 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012642902910

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012642902910

Navigation