A new valuation question: analysis of and insights from interval open-ended data in contingent valuation

Abstract

Classic and interval open-ended (CIOE) question, Contingent valuation, Middle-censored data, Salmon, Valuation uncertainty, Willingness to pay,

Valuation of ecotoxicological impacts from tributyltin based on a quantitative environmental assessment framework

“…The respondents would then have an actual chance of experiencing the change themselves. The fact of there being no difference in mean WTP values between scenarios in CV studies is not uncommon (e.g., Håkansson 2008;Ahtiainen et al 2013). It might be argued that this result is due to some kind of scope effect, , the respondents see a rather small difference between the two scenarios.…”

“…The Classic and Interval Open-Ended (CIOE) question by Håkansson (2008) was used in the survey since it captures valuation uncertainty-many previous valuation studies have shown that a large proportion of the respondents are uncertain regarding their valuation of environmental goods and services (e.g., Ibid). The format gives the respondents the opportunity to choose whether to give the answer as a self-selected point value or as a self-selected range.…”

“…A stated exact value is interpreted as the respondent having no valuation uncertainty, i.e., it is used as the true WTP when estimating the mean WTP (e.g., Håkansson 2008). For a stated interval, the mid-point is used as the true WTP (e.g., Hanley et al 2009) when estimating the mean WTP.…”

“…Hence, it could be argued that the mean WTP value should be complemented by upper and lower estimates. The mean WTP of the left and right ends of the ranges stated in the responses to the range question can be interpreted as lower and upper boundaries of the mean WTP (mean WTP L and mean WTP U , respectively) (e.g., Håkansson 2008). Thus, these estimates are also presented.…”

Disentangling the Pure Time Effect From Site and Preference Heterogeneity Effects in Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Investigation of Transferability

“…Rather than having perfect knowledge of own maximum WTP in the somewhat unfamiliar situation that a CVM questionnaire poses to most people, respondents may only know an approximate interval in which their maximum WTP lies (e.g. Dubourg et al 1994;Ready et al 2001;Håkansson 2008). So if a respondent by chance reported a relatively high bid from this range of maximum WTP in 2005, there is a higher probability of reporting a lower or the same WTP in 2010 than reporting a higher WTP (assuming a normal distribution of the WTP interval).…”