Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A three-way treatment design is used to compare contingent valuation response formats. Respondents are asked to value an endangered species (the red-cockaded woodpecker) and the restoration of its habitat following a natural disaster. For three question formats (open-ended, payment card, and double-bounded dichotomous choice), differences in survey response rates, item non-response rates, and protest bids are examined. Bootstrap techniques are used to compare means across formats and to explore differences in willingness to pay (WTP) distribution functions. Convergent validity is found in a comparison of mean WTP values, although some differences are apparent in the cumulative distribution functions. Differences across formats are also identified in item non-response rates and proportion of protest bids. Overall, the payment card format exhibits desirable properties relative to the other two formats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Babbie, E. (1995), The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 7th edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, J. M. and J. R. Stoll (1988), ‘Use of Dichotomous Choice Nonmarket Methods to Value the Whooping Crane Resource’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 372-381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J. and R. C. Bishop (1988), ‘Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 20-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., F. R. Johnson and D. W. McCollum (1997), ‘Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-bounded, Contingent Valuation Questions’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 1495-1500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., F. R. Johnson, D. W. McCollum, W. H. Desvousges, R. W. Dunford and S. P. Hudson (1996), ‘Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses’, Land Economics 72, 381-396

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., H. F. MacDonald, H. Cheng, and D.W. McCollum (1998), ‘Bid Design and Yea-Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions’, Land Economics 74, 49-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. C., P. A. Champ, R. C. Bishop and D. W. McCollum (1996), ‘Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?’ Land Economics 72, 152-166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. A. and D. Huppert (1991), ‘Referendum Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 86, 910-918.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T.A. and J. Quiggin (1994), ‘Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a ‘Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up’ Questionnaire’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27, 218-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G. and R. A. Zeller (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T. (1991), ‘Constructed Markets’, in J. B. Braden and C. D. Kolstad (eds.), Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R. G., D. S. Brookshire and W. D. Schulze (eds.) (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods — An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalecki, M. G., J. C. Whitehead and G. C. Blomquist (1993), ‘Sample Non-response Bias and Aggregate Benefits in Contingent Valuation: an Examination of Early, Late and Non-Respondents’, Journal of Environmental Management 38, 133-143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges, W. H., F. R. Johnson, R. W. Dunford, K. J. Boyle, S. P. Hudson and K. N. Wilson (1993), ‘Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability’, in J. A. Hausman (ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges, W. H., V. K. Smith, D. Brown and D. K. Pate (1984), ‘The Role of Focus Groups in Designing a Contingent Valuation Survey to Measure the Benefits of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.’ Draft report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, J. and D. Patterson (1991), ‘Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, Land Economics 67, 225-239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Register (1993), ‘Natural Resource Damage Assessments Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990’, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 15 CFR Chapter IX. 58(10), 4601-4614. Friday, January 15.

  • Fisher, A. C. (1994), ‘The Conceptual Underpinnings of the Contingent Valuation Method.’ Paper presented at the DOE/EPA Workshop on Using Contingent Valuation to Measure Non-Market Values. Herndon, Virginia, May 19–20.

  • Freedman, D. A. and S. C. Peters (1984), ‘Bootstrapping a Regression Equation: Some Empirical Results’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 79, 97-106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. (1992), LIMDEP Version 6.0: User's Manual and Reference Guide. Bellport, New York: Econometric Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W. M., J. Loomis and B. Kanninen (1991), ‘Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73, 1255-1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herriges, J. A. and J. F. Shogren (1996), ‘Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-up Questioning’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 112-131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T. P. and R. A. Kramer (1995), ‘An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 121-132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, R. G., J. C. Watson and R. E. F. Escano (1990), ‘Hurricane Hugo's initial Effects on Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in the Francis Marion National Forest’, Transactions of the Fifty-Fifth North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference.

  • Huang, J. C. and V. K. Smith (1998), ‘Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods’, Land Economics 74, 186-202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. L., N. S. Bregenzer and B. Shelby (1990), ‘Contingent Valuation Question Formats: Dichotomous Choice versus Open-Ended Responses’, in R. L. Johnson and G. V. Johnson (eds.), Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory, and Applications. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Chapter 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalton, G. and D.W. Anderson (1986), ‘Sampling Rare Populations’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (A) 149, 65-82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanninen, B. J. (1995), ‘Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 114-125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kealy, M. and R. W. Turner (1993), ‘A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 311-331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kealy, M., M. Montgomery and J. F. Dovidio (1990), ‘Reliability and Predictive Validity of Contingent Values: Does the Nature of the Good Matter?’ Journal of Environmental Economic and Management 19, 244-263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kish, L. (1965), Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, C. L. and R. J. Sexton (1990), ‘Bootstrapping in Applied Welfare Analysis’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 406-418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krinsky, I. and A. L. Robb (1986), ‘On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities’, The Review of Economics and Statistics 68, 715-719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B. (1990), ‘Comparative Reliability of the Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Techniques’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 78-85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B., T. Brown, B. Lucero and G. Peterson (1997), ‘Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation’, Environmental and Resource Economics 10, 109-123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B., M. Lockwood and T. DeLacy (1993), ‘Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24, 45-55.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. L. (1994), ‘Contingent Valuation and Social Choice’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 689-708.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. L. and G. K. Leonard (1993), ‘Issues in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: Methodologies for Data Collection and Analysis’, in J. A. Hausman (ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1986), ‘Some Comments on the State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method Draft Report’, in R. C. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire and W. D. Schulze (eds.), Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, C. A., G. M. Brown, Jr. and D. M. Adams (1994), ‘The Marginal Cost of Species Preservation: the Northern Spotted Owl’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 111-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, T., J. B. Loomis and M. Creel (1991), ‘Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, Land Economics 67, 64-73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ready, R. C., J. C. Buzby and D. Hu (1996), ‘Differences Between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates’, Land Economics 72, 397-411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, R. D., W. D. Schulze and W. W. Breffle (1996), ‘A Test for Payment Card Biases’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 178-185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, H. (1994), ‘The Sensitivity of CV Outcomes to CV Survey Methods.’ Paper presented at the DOE/EPA Workshop on Using Contingent Valuation to Measure Non-Market Values. Herndon, Virginia, May 19–20.

  • Smith, V. K. and W. H. Desvousges (1986), Measuring Water Quality Benefits. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, T. H., J. Echeverria, R. J. Glass, T. Hager and T.A. More (1991), ‘Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?’ Land Economics 67, 390-400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, S. (1972), ‘On Sampling of Very Rare Human Populations’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 67, 335-339.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Bureau of the Census (1992), Statistical Abstracts of the United States.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0401, USA (e-mail

    Dixie Watts Reaves

  2. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, USA

    Randall A. Kramer

  3. Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, USA

    Thomas P. Holmes

Authors
  1. Dixie Watts Reaves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Randall A. Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas P. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reaves, D.W., Kramer, R.A. & Holmes, T.P. Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species. Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 365–383 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008320621720

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008320621720

Search

Navigation