[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saea13/143034.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What to Do with “Prefer Not to Vote” Responses from Contingent Valuation Surveys?

Author

Listed:
  • Hwang, Joonghyun
  • Petrolia, Daniel R.
  • Interis, Matthew G.
  • Harri, Ardian
Abstract
Arrow et al. (1993), the “Blue Ribbon” panel that issued guidelines for contingent valuation, recommended that respondents to contingent valuation surveys be explicitly allowed to give ‘no-answer’ responses such as ‘don’t know / not sure / prefer not to vote (PNV)’ in addition to the typical ‘yes / no’ responses. However, they do not provide any further guidelines on what to do with such responses. A nationwide contingent valuation (CV) survey in 2011 for the purpose of obtaining welfare estimates of coastal wetland restoration in Louisiana was conducted, and 27 percent of total respondents chose the PNV option. This study identified demographic variables that affect respondents to choose PNV. More interestingly, we found that as the level of offered bid for the proposed environmental project increases, the proportion of ‘yes’ responses decreases, and proportions of ‘no’ and PNV equally increase. We also found that when PNV is compared to ‘yes’, respondents who believe the survey is consequential are less likely to choose PNV than respondents who believe the survey is inconsequential, and respondents who have no clear opinion about the consequentiality of the survey are more likely to choose PNV in both cases in which PNV is compared to ‘yes’ and in which PNV is compared to ‘no’.

Suggested Citation

  • Hwang, Joonghyun & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G. & Harri, Ardian, 2013. "What to Do with “Prefer Not to Vote” Responses from Contingent Valuation Surveys?," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 143034, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea13:143034
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.143034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/143034/files/Hwang%20et%20al.%202013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.143034?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    2. Haener, Michel K. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1998. "Analysis Of "Don'T Know" Response To Referendum Contingent Valuation Questions," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    4. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
    5. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    6. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Kim, Tae-Goun, 2011. "Contingent valuation with heterogeneous reasons for uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 515-526, September.
    7. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    8. Durand, Richard M. & Lambert, Zarrel V., 1988. "Don't know responses in surveys: Analyses and interpretational consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 169-188, March.
    9. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hwang, Joonghyun & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2014. "Consequentiality and Opt-out Responses in Stated Preference Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    2. Mary F. Evans & Nicholas E. Flores & Kevin J. Boyle, 2003. "Multiple-Bounded Uncertainty Choice Data as Probabilistic Intentions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 549-560.
    3. Wang,Hua & Laplante, Benoit & Xun Wu & Meisner, Craig, 2004. "Estimating willingness-to-pay with random valuation models : an application to Lake Sevan, Armenia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3367, The World Bank.
    4. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2009. "Dichotomous-choice contingent valuation with 'dont know' responses and misreporting," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(7), pages 1137-1152.
    5. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    6. Champ, Patricia A. & Alberini, Anna & Correas, Ignacio, 2005. "Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 47-60, October.
    7. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Kelvin Balcombe & Aurelia Samuel & Iain Fraser, 2009. "Estimating WTP With Uncertainty Choice Contingent Valuation," Studies in Economics 0921, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    9. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Mart󹑺-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    10. Wang, Hua & Xie, Jian & Li, Honglin, 2010. "Water pricing with household surveys: A study of acceptability and willingness to pay in Chongqing, China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 136-149, March.
    11. Wang, Hua & Shi, Yuyan & Kim, Yoonhee & Kamata, Takuya, 2013. "Valuing water quality improvement in China: A case study of Lake Puzhehei in Yunnan Province," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 56-65.
    12. Stithou, Mavra, 2009. "Respondent Certainty and Payment Vehicle Effect in Contingent Valuation: an Empirical Study for the Conservation of Two Endangered Species in Zakynthos Island, Greece," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2009-21, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    13. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
    14. Rebecca Moore & Richard C. Bishop & Bill Provencher & Patricia A. Champ, 2010. "Accounting for Respondent Uncertainty to Improve Willingness‐to‐Pay Estimates," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(3), pages 381-401, September.
    15. Ana Bedate & Luis Herrero & José Sanz, 2009. "Economic valuation of a contemporary art museum: correction of hypothetical bias using a certainty question," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(3), pages 185-199, August.
    16. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Kim, Tae-Goun, 2011. "Contingent valuation with heterogeneous reasons for uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 515-526, September.
    17. Shaikh, Sabina L., 2005. "Does Uncertainty Matter: An Application to the Willingness to Pay to Reduce Swimming Bans in Chicago," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19134, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    19. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    20. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:saea13:143034. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.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.