Statistical Efficiency of Double‐Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation
Abstract
The statistical efficiency of conventional dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys can be improved by asking each respondent a second dichotomous choice question which depends on the response to the first question—if the first response is “yes,” the second bid is some amount greater than the first bid; while, if the first response is “no,” the second bid is some amount smaller. This “double‐bounded” approach is shown to be asymptotically more efficient than the conventional, “singlebounded” approach. Using data from a survey of Californians regarding their willingness to pay for wetlands in the San Joaquin Valley, we show that, in a finite sample, the gain in efficiency can be very substantial.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Related is another $130 million in wildfire management accounts not explicitly labeled for suppression, preparedness, fuel treatment, or rehabilitation purposes.
“Related is another $130 million in wildfire management accounts not explicitly labeled for suppression, preparedness, fuel treatment, or rehabilitation purposes.”
From The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey (2017) · cites this paper as [39]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation
Train, K. E. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805271 · Cited by 7,784 · see citing works
Qaim, M., & de Janvry, A. (2003) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00490 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey
Thomas, D., Butry, D., Gilbert, S., Webb, D., & Fung, J. (2017) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.1215 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Yue, W., Liu, N., Zheng, Q., & Wang, H. H. (2021) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods10092156 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“Thus, the double-bounded dichotomous choice method can collect more information about WTP [33].”
MethodMooney, D. F., Barham, B. L., & Lian, C. (2015) · Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy · doi:10.1093/aepp/ppu033 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B.
- Affiliations
- University of California Berkeley
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Agricultural Economics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1991-11
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1255-1263
- ISSN
- 0002-9092 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8276
- OpenAlex
- W2095760344
- Cited by
- 1,824
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 70 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 85 · 2016: 74 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 73 · 2012: 66
- FWCI
- 18.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Agricultural Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Keywords
- double-bounded contingent valuation, dichotomous choice, willingness to pay, statistical efficiency, wetland valuation, San Joaquin Valley, environmental valuation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
