Article

Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies

Environmental and Resource Economics (Impact Factor: 1.52). 01/2000; 16(4):407-422. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008368611972
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT The payment vehicle is a crucial element inapplications of the contingent valuation methodbecause it provides the context for payment. However,in many countries a relative unfamiliarity with theuse of tax levies and referenda can affect theplausibility of payment vehicles and lead to paymentvehicle bias. The most commonly used approach fordetermining whether payment bias exists is to usetests of convergent validity. It is demonstrated thatsimple tests of convergent validity can be ineffectivein diagnosing the existence of payment vehicle bias.Payment vehicle bias is found to occur because ofdifferences in the coverage of payment vehicles anddoubts about payment being one-off. When respondentsare found to be protesting against a particularpayment vehicle, the current state of the art approachis to delete them from the sample. In this paper analternative approach that relies on the recoding ofprotest responses is proposed. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

0 Bookmarks
 · 
93 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Threatened species programs need a social license to justify public funding. A contingent valuation survey of a broadly representative sample of the Australian public found that almost two thirds (63%) supported funding of threatened bird conservation. These included 45% of a sample of 645 respondents willing to pay into a fund for threatened bird conservation, 3% who already supported bird conservation in another form, and 15% who could not afford to pay into a conservation fund but who nevertheless thought that humans have a moral obligation to protect threatened birds. Only 6% explicitly opposed such payments. Respondents were willing to pay about AUD 11 annually into a conservation fund (median value), including those who would pay nothing. Highest values were offered by young or middle aged men, and those with knowledge of birds and those with an emotional response to encountering an endangered bird. However, the prospect of a bird going extinct alarmed almost everybody, even most of those inclined to put the interests of people ahead of birds and those who resent the way threatened species sometimes hold up development. The results suggest that funding for threatened birds has widespread popular support among the Australian population. Conservatively they would be willing to pay about AUD 14 million per year, and realistically about AUD 70 million, which is substantially more than the AUD 10 million currently thought to be required to prevent Australian bird extinctions.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(6):e100411. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on behavioural reasons underlying stated attribute non-attendance. In order to identify and incorporate procedures for dealing with heterogeneous attribute processing strategies, we ask respondents follow-up questions regarding their reasons for ignoring attributes. Based on these statements, we conclude that the standard way of assigning a zero impact of ignored attributes on the likelihood is inappropriate. We find that some respondents act in accordance with the passive bounded rationality assumption since they ignore an attribute simply because it does not affect their utility. Excluding these genuine zero preferences, as the standard approach essentially does, might bias results. Other respondents claim to have ignored attributes to simplify choices. However, we find that these respondents have actually not completely ignored attributes. We argue along the rationally adaptive behavioural model that preferences are indeed elicited in these cases, and we show how using a scaling approach can appropriately weight these observations in the econometric model. Finally, we find that some respondents ignore attributes for protest-like reasons which essentially convey no information about preferences. We suggest that using the standard approach combined with weighting procedures and recoding of non-attendance statements conditional on the specific reasons for non-attendance could be more appropriate than the current standard way of taking stated non-attendance into account.
    Environmental and Resource Economics 01/2011; 54(3). · 1.52 Impact Factor