Bid Design Effects in Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation

A potential concern in “multiple bounded discrete choice” contingent valuation surveys – where the respondent is asked to express voting certainty, rather than a simple yes or no, on a large number of payment amounts (bids) – is whether responses are influenced by the particular position of bids in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEnvironmental & resource economics Vol. 29; no. 4; pp. 401 - 418
Main Authors Poe, Gregory, Welsh, P, Vossler, Christian Allen, Ethier, Robert
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Dordrecht European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 01.12.2004
Springer Nature B.V
SeriesEnvironmental & Resource Economics
Subjects
bid design effects
Bids
contingent valuation
decision making
Economic theory
Environment
Environmental economics
Estimating techniques
Estimation
Natural resources
nonparametric estimation
Q1
Studies
Validity
validity tests
Valuation
Willingness to pay
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:A potential concern in “multiple bounded discrete choice” contingent valuation surveys – where the respondent is asked to express voting certainty, rather than a simple yes or no, on a large number of payment amounts (bids) – is whether responses are influenced by the particular position of bids in the bid-voting panel rather than solely on the respondent’s willingness to pay (WTP). For instance, respondents may systematically state they would pay the first few bid amounts and not pay all subsequent bids – regardless of the actual dollar values. Such systematic bid design effects would suggest that this method does not provide a valid measure of WTP. Using a split-sample survey, we compare responses to three different bid arrays that have an identical minimum bid, maximum bid, and number of bids. Using nonparametric estimation techniques, we find that estimated WTP distributions and corresponding welfare measures are not statistically different across survey samples. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0924-6460
1573-1502
DOI:10.1007/s10640-004-9457-2