Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 461–476 | Cite as

The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites

  • Elisabetta Strazzera
  • Margarita Genius
  • Riccardo Scarpa
  • George Hutchinson


Contingent valuation studies are often characterized by a considerable number of protest responses, which may cause selectivity bias on the final estimates for WTP. Sample selection models can detect and – if necessary – correct selectivity bias. In economic applications where the relevant dependent variable is continuous, sample selection models are generally estimated using Heckman's 2-step method rather than the FIML estimator. Either method has its own drawback: computational complexity for the FIML method, susceptibility to collinearity problems for the 2-step method. Using data on valuation of forest resources for recreational use, we analyse the performance of the two estimators. In this application, given the presence of some collinearity, the FIML is preferred to the 2-step method. A procedure is outlined to deal with selectivity problems in similar settings.

contingent valuation FIML protest responses sample selection 2-step method 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alberini, A., B. Kanninen and R. T. Carson (1997), ‘Modelling Response Incentive Effects in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data’, Land Economics 73(3), 309-324.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Farizo B., N. Hanley, R. E. Wright and D. MacMillan (1999), ‘Estimating the Benefits of Agri-Environmental Policy: Econometric Issues in Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Studies’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42(1), 23-43.Google Scholar
  3. An, M. Y. and R. A. Ayala (1996), ‘A Mixture Model of Willingness to Pay Distributions’, Mimeograph, available by FTP at ‘pub/man/papers/’.Google Scholar
  4. Bateman I. J., I. H. Langford and J. Rasbash (1999), ‘Willingness-to-Pay Question Format Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies’, Chapter 15, in I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis, eds., Valuing Environmental Preferences. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Belsley, D. A., E. Kuh and R. E. Welsch (1980), Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Calia, P. and E. Strazzera (2001), ‘A Sample Selection Model for Protest Votes in Contingent Valuation Analyses’, Statistica 61(3), 473-485.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, T. A. (1991), ‘Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys’, Land Economics 67, 413-421.Google Scholar
  8. 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(3), 218-234.Google Scholar
  9. Donaldson, C., A. M. Jones, T. Mapp and J. A. Olson (1998), ‘Limited Dependent Variables in Willingness to Pay Studies: Applications in Health Care’, Applied Economics 30, 667-677.Google Scholar
  10. Federal Guidelines (1983), Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. U.S. Water Resources Council February 3 1983.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman A. Myrick III (1986), ‘Chapter 10’, in R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire and W. D. Schulze, Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman and Littlefield Savage, Maryland.Google Scholar
  12. Greene, W. H. (1997), Econometric Analysis. McMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  13. Haab, T. (1999), ‘Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 443-461.Google Scholar
  14. Halstead, J. M, A. E. Luloff and T. H. Stevens (1992), ‘Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation’, Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics 21, 160-169.Google Scholar
  15. Hanemann, W. M., J. B. Loomis and B. Kanninen (1991), ‘Statistical Efficiency of Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(4), 1255-1263.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Jorgensen, B. S. and G. J. Syme (2000), ‘Protest Responses and Willingness to Pay: Attitude Toward Paying for Stormwater Pollution Abatement’, Ecological Economics 33(2), 251-265.Google Scholar
  18. Jorgensen, B. S., G. J. Syme, B. J. Bishop and B. E. Nancarrow et al. (1999), ‘Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation’, Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 131-150.Google Scholar
  19. Judge, G. G.,W. E. Griffiths, R. C. Hill, H. Lutkepohl and T. C. Lee (1985), The Theory and Practice of Econometrics, 2nd ed. Wiley Kontoleon, A. and T. Swanson (2002), ‘The WTP for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species Be an Instrument for Conservation of Natural Habitat?’, mimeo. Department of Economics, University College of London.Google Scholar
  20. Kriström, B. (1997), ‘Spike Models in Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 1013-1023.Google Scholar
  21. Langford, I. H., A. Kontogianni, M. S. Skortous, S. Georgiou and I. Bateman (1998), ‘Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data’, Environmental and Resource Economics 12, 443-456.Google Scholar
  22. Leung, S. F. and S. Yu (1996), ‘On the Choice between Sample Selection Models and Two-part Models’, Journal of Econometrics 72, 197-229.Google Scholar
  23. Leung, S. F. and S. Yu (2000), ‘Collinearity and Two-Step Estimation of Sample Selection Models: Problems, Origins, and Remedies’, Computational Economics 15, 173-199.Google Scholar
  24. McFadden, D. (1994), ‘Contingent Valuation and Social Choice’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 689-708.Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nawata, K. and N. Nagase (1996), ‘Estimation of Sample Selection Bias Models’, Econometric Reviews 15(4), 387-400.Google Scholar
  27. Puhani, P. A. (2000), ‘The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique’, Journal of Economic Surveys 14(1), 53-67.Google Scholar
  28. Reiser, B. and M. Shechter (1999), ‘Incorporating Zero Values in the Economic Valuation of Environmental Program Profits’, Environmetrics 10, 87-101.Google Scholar
  29. Scarpa, R., K. G. Willis and G. D. Garrod (2001), ‘Estimating WTP for Speed Reduction from Dichotomous-Choice CV Responses with Follow-up: The Case of Rural Trunk Roads’, Environmental and Resource Economics 20(4), 281-304.Google Scholar
  30. Shyamsundar and Kramer (1996), ‘Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 129-144.Google Scholar
  31. Strazzera, E., R. Scarpa, P. Calia, G. Garrod and K. Willis (2003), ‘Modelling Zero Values and Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys’, Applied Economics 35(2), 133-138.Google Scholar
  32. Vella, F. (1998), ‘Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey’, The Journal of Human Resources 33(1): 127-169.Google Scholar
  33. Werner, M. (1999), ‘Allowing for Zeros in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Models’, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 17(4), 479-486.Google Scholar
  34. Whitehead, J. C., P. A. Groothuis and G. C. Blomquist (1993), ‘Testing for Non-response and Sample Selection Bias in Contingent Valuation’, Economic Letters 41, 215-220.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabetta Strazzera
    • 1
  • Margarita Genius
    • 2
  • Riccardo Scarpa
    • 3
  • George Hutchinson
    • 4
  1. 1.DRES and CrenosUniversity of CagliariItaly
  2. 2.Dept. of EconomicsUniversity of CreteGreece
  3. 3.Dept. of EnvironmentUniversity of YorkUK
  4. 4.Dept. Agricultural and Food EconomicsQueens UniversityBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations