Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques

Kevin Boyle and Richard C. Bishop

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1988, vol. 70, issue 1, 20-28

Abstract: Three commonly used techniques of asking contingent valuation questions are compared: iterative bidding, payment cards, and dichotomous choice. The results reveal that no single contingent valuation technique is neutral in the elicitation of hicksian surplus and each technique has its strengths and weaknesses. The iterative bidding estimates contain a starting point bias, while the payment card and dichotomous choice estimates were influenced by the interviewers soliciting the contingent values. Finally, the analysis of dichotomous choice responses involves unresolved issues that warrant further investigation. On the other hand, dichotomous choice is the easiest technique to administer in a survey setting.

Date: 1988
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (59)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1241972 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:70:y:1988:i:1:p:20-28.

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Agricultural Economics is currently edited by Madhu Khanna, Brian E. Roe, James Vercammen and JunJie Wu

More articles in American Journal of Agricultural Economics from Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().