SAMPLE BIAS IN CONTINGENT VALUATION - A COMPARISON OF THE CORRECTION METHODS

被引:10
|
作者
WHITEHEAD, JC
GROOTHUIS, PA
HOBAN, TJ
CLIFFORD, WB
机构
[1] WESTMINSTER COLL,DEPT ECON & BUSINESS,NEW WILMINGTON,PA
[2] N CAROLINA STATE UNIV,DEPT SOCIOL,RALEIGH,NC 27695
关键词
NONRESPONSE BIAS; SELECTION BIAS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; AGGREGATE BENEFITS;
D O I
10.1080/01490409409513235
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This article compares various methods for correcting contingent valuation aggregate benefits when the sample is known to be biased. A sample is defined as the population, and response rates are simulated on the basis of a measure of salience. The simulated response rates suffer from nonresponse bias and selection bias. Coefficient and benefit estimates that result from weighting and self-selection correction approaches are compared with the true coefficient and benefit estimates. Our results indicate that at both low and high response rates the standard approach leads to bias, and either correction approach will reduce the bias in coefficient and benefit estimates.
引用
收藏
页码:249 / 258
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity
    Garcia, Serce
    Harou, Patrice
    Montagne, Claire
    Stenger, Anne
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOREST ECONOMICS, 2009, 15 (1-2) : 59 - 78
  • [2] BIAS IN DISCRETE RESPONSE CONTINGENT VALUATION
    KANNINEN, BJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1995, 28 (01) : 114 - 125
  • [3] TESTING FOR NONRESPONSE AND SAMPLE SELECTION BIAS IN CONTINGENT VALUATION - ANALYSIS OF A COMBINATION PHONE MAIL SURVEY
    WHITEHEAD, JC
    GROOTHUIS, PA
    BLOMQUIST, GC
    [J]. ECONOMICS LETTERS, 1993, 41 (02) : 215 - 220
  • [4] A comparison of stated preferences methods for the valuation of natural resources: the case of contingent valuation and choice experiment
    Y. Bostan
    A. Fatahi Ardakani
    M. Fehresti Sani
    M. Sadeghinia
    [J]. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2020, 17 : 4031 - 4046
  • [5] A comparison of stated preferences methods for the valuation of natural resources: the case of contingent valuation and choice experiment
    Bostan, Y.
    Ardakani, A. Fatahi
    Sani, M. Fehresti
    Sadeghinia, M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 17 (09) : 4031 - 4046
  • [6] SAMPLE NONRESPONSE BIAS AND AGGREGATE BENEFITS IN CONTINGENT VALUATION - AN EXAMINATION OF EARLY, LATE AND NON-RESPONDENTS
    DALECKI, MG
    WHITEHEAD, JC
    BLOMQUIST, GC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 1993, 38 (02) : 133 - 143
  • [7] Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales
    Whynes, DK
    Wolstenholme, JL
    Frew, E
    [J]. HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2004, 13 (02) : 183 - 190
  • [8] Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies
    M. D. Morrison
    R. K. Blamey
    J. W. Bennett
    [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2000, 16 : 407 - 422
  • [9] Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies
    Morrison, MD
    Blamey, RK
    Bennett, JW
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2000, 16 (04): : 407 - 422
  • [10] STARTING POINT BIAS IN CONTINGENT VALUATION BIDDING GAMES
    BOYLE, KJ
    BISHOP, RC
    WELSH, MP
    [J]. LAND ECONOMICS, 1985, 61 (02) : 188 - 194