Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEthier, Robert G.
dc.contributor.authorPoe, Gregory L.
dc.contributor.authorVossler, Christian A.
dc.contributor.authorWelsh, Michael P.
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-21T17:09:05Z
dc.date.available2018-08-21T17:09:05Z
dc.date.issued2001-11
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1813/57682
dc.descriptionWP 2001-21 November 2001
dc.description.abstractTwo methods for calibrating discrete choice contingent valuation responses – the dichotomous choice with follow-up certainty question method of Champ et al. (1997) and the multiple bounded method of Welsh and Poe (1998) – are evaluated using data from a field validity comparison of hypothetical and actual participation decisions in a green electricity pricing program. Both calibration methods can produce hypothetical participation levels that closely correspond with actual program participation rates. However, the two methods demonstrate procedural variance as they yield significantly different underlying distributions of willingness to pay.
dc.description.sponsorshipFunding for this project was provided by NSF/EPA Grant R 824688 and USDA Regional Projects W-133, Cornell University.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherCharles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University
dc.titlePayment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test
dc.typearticle
dcterms.licensehttp://hdl.handle.net/1813/57595


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Dyson School Working Papers
    Working Papers published by the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University

Show simple item record

Statistics