Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology

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

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a method of identifying and truncating protesters in Contingent Valuation surveys. We propose using a system of Willingness to Pay (WTP) questions that value multiple goods and that use both discrete choice and open-ended questions coupled with multiple questions about protest beliefs administered to the entire sample. Protesters can then be identified because they reject all bids, declare zero on all open-ended questions, and hold protest beliefs. The proposed procedure has been empirically tested on an air pollution data set from Poland, where 27 of the sample was identified as protesters. The adjustment for protesters increased the estimated WTP values by a factor of more than 3.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more details on the system, ordering effect and testing for independence among valued components see (Dziegielewska and Mendelsohn 2005).

  2. One rare example in the literature is the paper by Jorgensen and Syme (2000), who measure protest beliefs for all respondents irrespective of their answer to the WTP question. They find that those who accept a bid also share protest attitudes. Further, they find that protest beliefs are related to demographic factors and certain attitudes toward paying. The authors provide evidence that simple truncation of protesters biases results towards respondents with higher income and towards those individuals favorably disposed to paying for environmental public goods.

  3. For the English translation of the version A of the questionnaire see Dziegielewska and Mendelsohn (2005).

  4. Since the same pattern of coefficient signs and magnitude was observed for models of the remaining seven components of air pollution damage, for simplicity they were omitted.

  5. Descriptive statistics of the variables in best-fit models are presented in the Appendix B.

  6. In the survey, information about monthly income was collected. The average monthly income in the sample was 640PLN, and median monthly income was 500PLN.

  7. Appendix B contains only mortality valuation questions and adding up questions. For the text of the whole questionnaire please refer to Dziegielewska and Mendelsohn, 2005.

Abbreviations

CV:

Compensated variation

CVM:

Contingent valuation methods

DC:

Dichotomous choice

OE:

Open-ended

WTP:

Willingness to pay

References

  • Arrow K et al (2002) Appendix I: report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. In: Cost-benefit analysis, 297–323, Elgar reference collection. International library of critical writings in economics, vol 152. Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass., distributed by American International Distribution Corporation, Williston, Vt

  • Boyle KJ, Welsh MP, Bishop RC (1993) The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies. J Environ Econ Manage 25(1):S80–S99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA, James MD (1987) Efficient estimation methods for close-ended contingent valuation surveys. Rev Econ Stat 69(2):269–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manage 15(3):355–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, RT, Groves T, Machina MJ (2000) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, California (www.econ.ucsd.edu/%Ercarson/cgm,pdf)

  • Council of the European Union (1999) Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations. Official Journal 29:0001–0022

    Google Scholar 

  • Dziegielewska DA, Mendelsohn R (2005) Valuing air quality in Poland. Environ Resour Econ 30(2):131–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halstead JM, Luloff AE, ThomasStevens H (1992) Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern J Agric Resour Econ 21(2):160–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt JK, Zhou Y (2006) The economic value of air-pollution-related health risks in china: a contingent valuation study. Environ Resour Econ 33(3):399–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM, (1984) Welfare Evaluation in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3):182–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM, Loomis, J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73(4):1255–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM, Kanninen B (1996) The statistical analysis of discrete-response. CV Data, Working paper

  • Huang JC, Smith VK (1998) Monte Carlo benchmarks for discrete response valuation methods. Land Econ 74(2):186–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, and Nancarrow BE et al (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14(1):131–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (1995) Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation. J Water Resour: Plan Manage 121(5):400–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for storm water pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33(2):251–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey G (1994) Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation. J Water Resour: Plan Manage 120(1):121–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCollum DW, Boyle KJ (2005) The effect of respondent experience/knowledge in the elicitation of contingent values: an investigation of convergent validity, procedural invariance and reliability. Environ Resour Econ 30(1):23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell K (1990) Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 18(1):19–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1974) The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand. J Publ Econ 3(4):303–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowska A, Zylicz T (1999) Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea. Ecol Econ 30(2):301–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland RJ, Walsh RG (1985) Effects of distance on the preservation of water quality. Land Econ 61(3):281–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington D et al (1992) Giving Respondents Time to Think in Contingent Valuation Studies: A Developing Countries Application. J Environ Econ Manage 22(3):205–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zylicz T, Bateman I, Georgiou S, Markowska A, Dziegielewska D, Turner RK, Graham A, Langford I (1995) The Baltic drainage basin project: contingent valuation of eutrophication damage in the Baltic Sea region. CSERGE, Working Paper

  • Zylicz, T (2000) Costing nature in a transition economy: case studies in Poland. Northampton Mass Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham UK

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Tomasz Zylicz, Bengt Kristrom, Alan Randall, Michale Hanemann, J. Preston Parry, and Olvar Bergland. We also thank Heinz Family Foundation, Institute for the Study of World Politics and Henry Hart Rice Research Fellowship for funding this project, although all views are the authors’ alone.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Dominika A. Dziegielewska

    Present address: , 2424 Ashwood Dr, Louisville, KY, 40205, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Dominika A. Dziegielewska

  2. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 360 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Robert Mendelsohn

Authors
  1. Dominika A. Dziegielewska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Mendelsohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominika A. Dziegielewska.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 8  Variables in best fit models descriptive statistics (n = 1055)
Full size table

Appendix B

1.1 Parts of the questionnaire–version a Footnote 7

1.1.1 Scenario:

I would like to ask you a few questions about air quality in Poland. Clean air is always desirable, yet air quality improvement requires financial investment. The larger the investment, the larger the air quality improvement observed. The cost of this improvement needs to be born by all Poles. The purpose of this study is to see what scale of the financial investment people are willing to approve.

Air pollution leads to many kinds of damages. It hurts human health (leading to several illnesses or even death), reduces visibility, damages buildings and monuments, and hurts nature, including agricultural crops. Air quality improvement would reduce these problems.

Now, each kind of benefits will be described to you separately. Then, you will be asked to estimate your willingness to pay separately for each of them.

(Please hand in Card A to the respondent, and collect it an the end of the survey.)

1.1.2 Mortality

Currently we have about 38 millions people living in Poland. Each year 375,000 people die in the whole country from various causes. Out of the 375,000, about 15,000 deaths are due to poor air quality. Most people whose death is related to air pollution are usually 65 and older. Lets imagine, that we can reduce the air pollution by 25% or 50% across the whole country. Introducing a 25% reduction will decrease deaths down to 11,000 per year, and 50% reduction will decrease deaths down to 7,500 deaths per year.

1.a. Would you be willing to pay X as a one time increase in taxes for reduction in annual deaths associated with 25% air pollution reduction? Answering the question please remember that the amount you state will decrease the amount of money you will have to spend for other things.

Y/N

1.b. And how much would you be willing to pay as a one time increase in taxes for reduction in annual deaths associated with a 50% air pollution reduction? Answering the question please remember that the amount you state will decrease the amount of money you will have to spend for other things.

—————————

1.1.3 Adding up

Now, I will add up all of amounts you declared.

(The interviewer needs to add the declared amounts)

————————–

You declared to pay (name the sum) for decreasing separate components of air pollution damages. Considering all of the damages together

9.a. How much would you be willing to pay, in terms of one time increase in tax, for overall damage reduction associated with the 25% reduction in air pollution?

Answering the question please remember that the amount you state will decrease the amount of money you will have to spend for other things.

  • A. I am willing to pay the exact sum I stated above.

  • B. I am willing to pay more then the sum stated above, namely .............

  • C. I am willing to pay less then the sum I stated above, namely .............

9.b. And how much would you be willing to pay, in terms of one time increase in tax, for overall damage reduction associated with the 50% reduction in air pollution?

Answering the question please remember that the amount you state will decrease the amount of money you will have to spend for other things.

  • A. I am willing to pay the exact sum I stated above.

  • B. I am willing to pay more then the sum stated above, namely .............

  • C. I am willing to pay less then the sum I stated above, namely .............

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dziegielewska, D.A., Mendelsohn, R. Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology. Environ Resource Econ 38, 71–87 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9057-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9057-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation