Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cns/cnscwp/200006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modelling zero bids in contingent valuation surveys

Author

Listed:
  • E. Strazzera
  • R. Scarpa
  • P. Calia
  • G. Garrod
  • K. Willis
Abstract
When modelling data generated from a discrete choice contingent valuation question, the treatment of zero bids affects the welfare estimates. Zero bids may come from respondents who are not interested in the provision of the public good; alternatively, some zero-bidders may be protesting about the valuation exercise, but hold positive values for the good. In this paper we investigate the effect of different levels of information on zero-bidders on welfare estimates for the population. We find that different strategies of identification may have non-trivial effects. We recommend use of full debriefing questions for zero-bidders, and use of sample selection models to correct for bias caused by protest behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Strazzera & R. Scarpa & P. Calia & G. Garrod & K. Willis, 2000. "Modelling zero bids in contingent valuation surveys," Working Paper CRENoS 200006, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    • Handle: RePEc:cns:cnscwp:200006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crenos.unica.it/crenos/node/150
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://crenos.unica.it/crenos/sites/default/files/wp/00-6.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    2. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1999. "A Sample Selection Model for Protest Non-Response Votes in Contingent Valuation Analyses," Working Paper CRENoS 199905, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    3. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Bengt Kriström, 1997. "Spike Models in Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 1013-1023.
    6. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
    7. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. M. Musumeci, 2000. "Innovazione tecnologica e beni culturali. Uno studio sulla situazione della Sicilia," Working Paper CRENoS 200008, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    2. Rihar, Miha & Hrovatin, Nevenka & Zoric, Jelena, 2015. "Household valuation of smart-home functionalities in Slovenia," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 42-53.
    3. Mosi Rosenboim & Tal Shavit, 2012. "Whose money is it anyway? Using prepaid incentives in experimental economics to create a natural environment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 145-157, March.
    4. R. Naylor, 2001. "Industry profits and market size under bilateral oligopoly," Working Paper CRENoS 200108, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    5. R. Naylor, 2001. "Firm profits and the number of firms under unionised oligopoly," Working Paper CRENoS 200109, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    6. C. Antonelli & R. Marchionatti & S. Usai, 2000. "Productivity and External Knowledge: The Italian Case," Working Paper CRENoS 200009, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    7. Garcia, Serge & Harou, Patrice & Montagné, Claire & Stenger, Anne, 2009. "Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 59-78, January.
    8. Rodrigo Abed & Haroon Sseguya & James Flock & Silvanus Mruma & Hamisi Mwango, 2020. "An Evolving Agricultural Extension Model for Lasting Impact: How Willing Are Tanzanian Farmers to Pay for Extension Services?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-13, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, J.M. & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 267-285, April.
    2. Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.
    3. Madureira, Lívia & Nunes, Luis C. & Borges, José G. & Falcão, André O., 2011. "Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: A Portuguese case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 399-414.
    4. Yoo, Seung-Hoon & Kwak, So-Yoon, 2009. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5408-5416, December.
    5. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    6. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    7. Mark Yuying An & Roberto Ayala, 1996. "Nonparametric Estimation of a Survivor Function with Across- Interval-Censored Data," Econometrics 9611003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2012. "Recreational value, user heterogeneity and site characteristics in contingent valuation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 195-204.
    9. John C. Whitehead & Jim Herstine & Christopher F. Dumas, 2007. "Recreational Boater Willingness to Pay for a Dredging and Maintenance Program for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in North Carolina," Working Papers 07-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    10. Jordan Louviere & Kenneth Train & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Chandra Bhat & David Brownstone & Trudy Cameron & Richard Carson & J. Deshazo & Denzil Fiebig & William Greene & David Hensher & Donald Waldman, 2005. "Recent Progress on Endogeneity in Choice Modeling," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 255-265, December.
    11. Talwar, Shagorika, 1995. "An evaluation of statistical efficiency and bias trade-off involved with the use of follow-up questioning in the contingent valuation of environmental amenities," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000018160, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    12. Jones, Benjamin A. & Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol & Ripberger, Joe & Carlson, Deven & Gupta, Kuhika & Wehde, Wesley, 2018. "In search of an inclusive approach: Measuring non-market values for the effects of complex dam, hydroelectric and river system operations," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 225-236.
    13. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    14. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    15. Arana, Jorge E. & Leon, Carmelo J., 2005. "Flexible mixture distribution modeling of dichotomous choice contingent valuation with heterogenity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 170-188, July.
    16. John C. Whitehead & Peter A. Groothuis & Rob Southwick, 2007. "Linking Recreation Demand and Willingness to Pay with the Inclusive Value: Valuation of Saginaw Bay Coastal Marsh," Working Papers 07-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    17. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    18. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2002. "A note about model selection and tests for non-nested contingent valuation models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 363-370, February.
    19. Hurle, Jesus Barreiro & Garcia, Jose Maria Casada & Perez y Perez, Luis, 2005. "Incorporating Uncertainty and Cero Values into the Valuation of Protected Areas and Species," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24745, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Tsigkou, Stavroula & Klonaris, Stathis, 2020. "Eliciting Farmers' Willingness to Pay for Innovative Fertilizer Against Soil Salinity: Comparison of Two Methods in a Field Survey," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 9, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cns:cnscwp:200006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CRENoS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crenoit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.