A general model for treatment of protests and no-answer responses in contingent valuation method

Abstract

(2017)This study formulates a general model to account for the protest responses and no-answer replies in contingent valuation method (CVM) and should be interesting to the readers in Environmental Economics both from the methodological aspect in CVM and from the application aspect in benefit evaluation of all kinds of environmental issues and natural resources conservation. This general model is applicable to all kinds of elicitation methods in CVM. The merits of this general model are simplicity in estimation and simultaneously accounting both for protest and noanswer responses. This general model certainly can offer future CVM applications a good direction and guidance in resolving these troublesome issues in this extensive use valuation method. Creation of inverse Mills ratio is the distinctive step in this general model. The results generally indicate that these ratios are significantly different from zero. This means that accounting for these Mills ratios does have an important role in such modification when protest responses and/or no-answer responses are both taken into account. The results show that overall total WTPs from the general model with inclusion of protest and no-answer responses under different types of elicitation formats are higher than those estimated by traditional treatment. The degree of underestimation of traditional treatment is between 26% and 67%. That is, the general model proposed here for treating protest and/or no-answer responses in CVM can account for the full information which might be potentially omitted or inappropriately dealt with in the estimation.

Estimating willingness to pay for public health insurance while accounting for protest responses: A further step towards universal health coverage in Tunisia?

“…In this case, when the question is whether s/he would join a scheme that is either offered for free or at a low cost, answering with a ‘Yes’ is expected (hence, a genuine null WTP). By contrast, missing and some WTP values may rather conceal some protest attitude on the part of the respondent vis‐à‐vis at least one of the following: the interview, the policy intervention, the methodology/characteristics of the survey (e.g., the proposed scheme, the public provider, the benefit package), or a strategic behaviour, viz ., free‐riding 16,17,36 . In this case, the respondent alludes to her/his unwillingness‐to‐participate by refusing to join even at a null or a very low cost (hence, a protest answer).…”

“…By contrast, missing and some WTP values may rather conceal some protest attitude on the part of the respondent vis-àvis at least one of the following: the interview, the policy intervention, the methodology/characteristics of the survey (e.g., the proposed scheme, the public provider, the benefit package), or a strategic behaviour, viz., free-riding. 16,17,36 In this case, the respondent alludes to her/his unwillingness-to-participate by refusing to join even at a null or a very low cost (hence, a protest answer). These intrinsically different significances reflect two different behaviours.…”

Análisis de la disposición a pagar por servicios ecosistémicos: un artículo de revisión

“…Además, se plantean preguntas sobre las características demográficas y socioeconómicas del encuestado (edad, sexo, educación, ingresos, etc. ), como indicadores de variaciones en las preferencias individuales (Havingaa et al 2019;Bottazzi et al, 2018;Wu et al, 2017).…”

“…Utilizando las técnicas de valoración contingente, lo que se proyecta calcular es, el monto monetario máximo que expresa la disposición a pagar (gastar) de una persona por el suministro o mejora recibida de un servicio de no mercado o, de manera alternativa, el monto mínimo que entiende debe ser compensado por la disminución o pérdida del disfrute del mismo servicio. Las preferencias generalmente se obtienen mediante preguntas abiertas que se preguntan a cada individuo (Baba y Hack, 2019;Wu et al, 2017) o preguntas de elección dicotómica cerradas. En cualquier caso, generalmente se supone que la disposición a pagar -respecto de un grupo de interés-es una variable aleatoria que sigue alguna distribución continua (Lazaridou y Michailidis, 2020;McDonald et al, 2019).…”

“…Las diferentes formas de aplicar el método de valoración contingente se pueden clasificar en tres grandes grupos (Giannakopoulou, 2017). Uno es la revelación directa de la disposición a pagar; otro es el tipo de elección discreta pura, como el de un solo límite, el doble límite e incluso el triple límite; y el otro es el formato de tipo híbrido con una combinación de elección discreta y revelación abierta, como un solo límite con seguimiento de pregunta abierta y doble límite con seguimiento de pregunta abierta (Wu et al, 2017). Para cualquiera de estos métodos, las denominadas respuestas de protesta -aquellas en las cuales, los encuestados responden con un simple "no"-ocurren inevitablemente por varias razones (Yang et al, 2020).…”