How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?
Richard C. Ready, Ståle Navrud, W. Richard Dubourg
Abstract
Richard C. Ready, Ståle Navrud, W. Richard Dubourg
Abstract
Four elicitation methods are compared in a split-sample, contingent-valuation study valuing avoidance of episodes of ill health linked to air pollution: two discrete methods and two more-continuous methods. Respondents to a traditional payment card (PC) question gave willingness-to-pay values that were lower than those implied by dichotomous-choice (DC) responses. However, follow up questions showed that DC respondents were less certain of their stated behavior than were PC respondents. When respondents were told to be “almost certain” of their responses, responses to the DC and the PC formats converged. (JEL Q21)
OpenAlex reports 187 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Four elicitation methods are compared in a split-sample, contingent-valuation study valuing avoidance of episodes of ill health linked to air pollution: two discrete methods and two more-continuous methods. Respondents to a traditional payment card (PC) question gave willingness-to-pay values that were lower than those implied by dichotomous-choice (DC) responses. However, follow up questions showed that DC respondents were less certain of their stated behavior than were PC respondents. When respondents were told to be “almost certain” of their responses, responses to the DC and the PC formats converged. (JEL Q21)
Key concepts: Contingent valuation, Willingness to pay, Payment, Payment card, Valuation (finance), Actuarial science, Psychology, Willingness to accept