A Comparison of Value Elicitation Question Formats in Multiple-Good Contingent Valuation
Chih-Chen Liu1(),Joseph A. Herriges2(),C. L. Kling3(),Silvia Secchi4(),Joan I. Nassauer5(),Daniel J. Phaneuf6()
1. Department of Applied Economics, National University of Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung 81148, Taiwan, China 2. Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA 3. Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA 4. Department of Agribusiness Economics, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA 5. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA 6. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
This paper provides a convergent validity test of two types of multinomial choice questions vis-à-vis a dichotomous choice question by formally testing whether these stated preference elicitation question formats provide comparable welfare estimates. In particular, a dichotomous choice question, a traditional multinomial choice question, and a modified multinomial choice question suggested by Carson and Groves (2007) were applied in split samples to assess the influence of the informational and incentive properties on the respondents’ annual willingness to accept compensation for adopting costly conservation practices in agriculture that benefit the environment. Our findings suggest that the two multinomial choice question formats elicit a similar mean willingness to accept distributions, but they are both different from a standard dichotomous choice question. Further, the willingness to accept distributions derived from the multinomial choice question formats are more dispersed than those from the dichotomous choice question.
. [J]. Frontiers of Economics in China, 2014, 9(1): 85-108.
Chih-Chen Liu,Joseph A. Herriges,C. L. Kling,Silvia Secchi,Joan I. Nassauer,Daniel J. Phaneuf. A Comparison of Value Elicitation Question Formats in Multiple-Good Contingent Valuation. Front. Econ. China, 2014, 9(1): 85-108.
