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)
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Log in using your username and password
Purchase access
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- How Sensitive are Environmental Values to Payment Card Design in Contingent Valuation?
- Estimating landowners willingness to accept payments for nature-based solutions in eastern North Carolina for flood hazard mitigation using the contingent valuation method
- Fire, Tractors, and Health in the Amazon: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Fire Policy
- Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences
- Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment
- Coherent Arbitrariness: On Value Uncertainty for Environmental Goods