Alternative approaches to dealing with respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparative analysis

Retail Demand for Voluntary Carbon Offsets – A Choice Experiment Among Swiss Consumers

“…Asking a follow-up question on choice certainty is one of the methods used in stated preferences surveys to capture respondent uncertainty. This information can be used for either recoding or weighting the answers in the choice situations in order to reduce the hypothetical bias inherent to answers in stated choice experiments (Ready et al, 1995;Champ et al, 1997;Akter et al, 2008;Martínez-Espiñeira and Lyssenko, 2012).…”

Contingent valuation and choice experiment of citizens’ willingness to pay for forest conservation in southern Finland

“…However, incorporating uncertainty into choice modelling has also had very different effects on the mean WTP estimate size. Some model specifications allowing for uncertainty have decreased the WTP (Li and Mattsson 1995;Champ et al 1997;Moore et al 2010) while others have increased it (Chang et al 2007;Moore et al 2010;Lyssenko and Martínez-Espiñeira 2012). These contradicting results support the findings that the uncertainty elicitation method may have a significant effect on the WTP estimates (Shaikh et al 2007;Akter et al 2008;Akter and Bennett 2013).…”

“…The cognitive ability to process complicated information given in a CV choice task may also affect information processing (Fischer and Glenk 2011) and thus uncertainty (Lyssenko and Martínez-Espiñeira 2012;Mahieu et al 2014). Earlier studies have operationalised cognitive ability using the education variable (Lyssenko and Martínez-Espiñeira 2012;Mahieu et al 2014) and self-reported confusion (Fischer and Glenk 2011). Gender has been used in some studies as the explanatory variable for uncertainty (Lyssenko and Martínez-Espiñeira 2012).…”

Respondent uncertainty and reliability in contingent valuation—A case of the Dalai Lake protected area

“…The weighting procedure attached more importance to the information provided by respondents that were more certain about their responses. The number of "no" respondents of full certainty was larger than the "yes" respondents compared with Martínez-Espiñeira and Lyssenko (2012). Therefore, the WTP of the sure model was smaller than that of the hypothetical model and fell within the 95% interval around the point estimated from the hypothetical model.…”

“…For example, Champ et al (1997), Champ and Bishop (2001), Ethier et al (2000) and Poe et al (2002) followed the recoding route, while Li and Mattson (1995), Samnaliev et al (2005), and Chang et al (2007) followed the reweighting route. Loomis and Ekstrand (1998), Akter et al (2008) and Martínez-Espiñeira and Lyssenko (2012) made some comparisons between some of the recoding and reweighting routes. However, most studies compared the response of the treatments with hypothetical payments instead of actual payments.…”