Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies

Environmental and Resource Economics (Impact Factor: 1.52). 08/2000; 16(4):407-422. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008368611972
Source: RePEc


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

37 Reads
  • Source
    • "Another issue is that " protestors " might have a positive WTP, but since it is not stated, the conservative way is to treat those responses as " no " responses (Carson and Czajkowski 2014). In order to identify protest responses, typically a set of attitudinal questions, addressing different reasons for protesting such as ethical beliefs, vehicle payment or fairness among others are presented to respondents (Strazzera et al. (2003) and Morrison et al. (2000)). Based on those answers, various criteria specific to the studies have been proposed in the literature. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examines households’ willingness to support the emissions reduction policy by paying extra on their electricity bills and their perceptions of climate change using an internet survey of over 1,000 households in Queensland, Australia. The results showed that respondents’ willingness to pay to support the emissions reduction target is higher if they perceive that climate change will result in high loss of biodiversity. Respondents were willing to support a higher emissions target than proposed by the Government. There is a correlation between respondents willingness to pay to support the emissions reduction and their beliefs about climate change, its effect on standards of living, the environment and future generations. Finally, the zero bids were further investigated using the non parametric Turnbull model and the more recent Spike model. The results showed that the level of support for the emissions reduction policy is not sufficient for the policy to be successful.
    SAGE Open 09/2015; 5(3). DOI:10.1177/2158244015604014
  • Source
    • "In the course of the debate about protest responses, a variety of reasons why respondents might protest have been suggested. A number of possible reasons have been mentioned in the literature: Dissension with specific aspects of the study such as for instance the payment vehicle; the policy context; ethical beliefs indicated by for example lexicographic preferences; misunderstandings or lack of information; fairness aspects; the type of good; institutional settings of the survey; and demographic characteristics of the respondent (Boyle 2003; Jorgensen et al. 1999; Jorgensen et al. 2001; Meyerhoff & Liebe 2006; Mogas et al. 2005; Morrison et al. 2000; Strazzera et al. 2003; Söderquist 1998) As shown above, the issues of different respondent and survey specific aspects potentially affecting protest behaviour have been mentioned in the existing literature, but to the authors " best knowledge many of these aspects have yet to be empirically investigated. For instance, Meyerhoff & Liebe (2008) stress the need for future studies to investigate whether protest beliefs and protest responses differ when the constructed market settings vary in terms of, e.g., using taxes as a payment vehicle and/or the dichotomous choice as a payment question format in CV. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is a well-known empirical finding that some percentage of respondents participating in Stated Preference surveys will not give responses that reflect their true preferences. One reason is protest behaviour. If the distribution of protest responses is not independent of respondent or survey characteristics, then simply expelling protesters from surveys can lead to sample selection bias. Furthermore, WTP estimates will not be comparable across surveys. This paper seeks to explore potential causes of protest behaviour through a meta-study based on full datasets from 38 different surveys. The objective of the study is to examine the effect of respondent specific variables as well as survey specific variables on protest behaviour. Our results suggest that some of the differences in WTP typically observed between different demographic groups, different elicitation formats and different question formats might actually be attributed to inherent differences in the propensity to protest. Our results indicate that the propensity for respondents to exhibit protest behaviour when asked a stated preference type valuation question depends on a number of specific factors, respondent specific as well as survey specific—knowledge which could be used in order to reduce protest behaviour.
    Environmental and Resource Economics 05/2014; 58(1):35-57. DOI:10.1007/s10640-013-9688-1 · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The second includes protest bids in the data set and treats them as legitimate zero bids (Giraud et al., 2002); and the third assigns protest bidders mean WTP values based on their sociodemographic characteristics relative to the rest of the sample extrapolating mean sample WTP to the population as a whole (Walsh et al., 1984). Thus, as the literature shows, there are various ways of dealing with protest responses, but the most common application in CV is to delete these observations from the sample (see Adamowicz et al., 1998; Morrison et al., 2000). However, Jorgensen and Syme (2000) consider that protest beliefs are representative of attitudes towards the valuation process and argue that the censoring of protest responses is unjustified. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Not much attention has been given to protest responses in choice experiments (CE). Using follow-up statements, we are able to identify protest responses and compute welfare estimates with and without the inclusion of such protest responses. We conclude that protest responses are fairly common in CE, and their analysis affects the statistical performance of the empirical models. In particular, when the sample is corrected by protests, our results come from utility consistent models. Thus, future choice experiments should consider the role of protest responses as contingent valuation studies have done.
    Forest Systems 03/2013; 22(1). DOI:10.5424/fs/2013221-03103 · 0.80 Impact Factor
Show more

We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on ResearchGate. Read our cookies policy to learn more.