Testing the consistency between standard contingent valuation, repeated contingent valuation, and choice experiments

Mike Christie, Christopher Azevedo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Choice experiments are a relatively new approach to valuing environmental resources. Initial tests of the validity of the approach have either compared benefit estimates generated using choice experiments with those estimated using contingent valuation or used more sophisticated hypothesis tests of parameter equality. Although useful, existing tests have been restricted to testing consistency based on a single policy scenario (standard contingent valuation). We argue that, though these tests are informative, they fail to take full advantage of the richness of choice experiment data. In particular, choice experiment data allow for the calculation of benefit estimates over a range of policy scenarios (i.e. attribute combinations). A similar range of benefit estimates may be generated by pooling scenarios in a repeated contingent valuation study. In this paper we explore this relationship between contingent valuation and choice experiments by conducting validity tests between a choice experiment model and a repeated contingent valuation model over a range of three levels of improved water quality at Clear Lake, Iowa. Evidence from this test suggests that the choice experiment and contingent valuation data are consistent.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)154-170
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Agricultural Economics
Volume60
Issue number1
Early online date28 Aug 2008
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Feb 2009

Keywords

  • water quality
  • repeated contingent valuation
  • stated preference
  • contingent valuation
  • Choice experiments
  • convergent validity
  • revealed preference

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Testing the consistency between standard contingent valuation, repeated contingent valuation, and choice experiments'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this