Convergent validity between willingness to pay elicitation methods: an application to Grand Canyon whitewater boaters
We directly compare trip willingness to pay (WTP) values between dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DCCV) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) stated preference surveys of private party Grand Canyon whitewater boaters. The consistency of DCCV and DCE estimates is debated in the literature, and...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of environmental planning and management 2019-03, Vol.62 (4), p.611-625 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 625 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 611 |
| container_title | Journal of environmental planning and management |
| container_volume | 62 |
| creator | Neher, Christopher Bair, Lucas Duffield, John Patterson, David Neher, Katherine |
| description | We directly compare trip willingness to pay (WTP) values between dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DCCV) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) stated preference surveys of private party Grand Canyon whitewater boaters. The consistency of DCCV and DCE estimates is debated in the literature, and this study contributes to the body of work comparing the methods. Comparisons were made of mean WTP estimates for four hypothetical Colorado River flow-level scenarios. Boaters were found to most highly value mid-range flows, with very low and very high flows eliciting lower WTP estimates across both DCE and DCCV surveys. Mean WTP precision was estimated through simulation. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two methods at three of the four hypothetical flow levels. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/09640568.2018.1435411 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2233574488</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2233574488</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-4c97a09540343d8005798ce1c2a8d7225f5fa7aa640460aa1575b7d8f8f18fe63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1PxCAQhonRxPXjJ5iQeO4KBVrqSbPxKzHxomcy24LLpgsVWJv-e2lWr54mwPPODA9CV5QsKZHkhjQVJ6KSy5JQuaScCU7pEVpQVpGCCNEco8XMFDN0is5i3BJCBKPVAu1X3n3r8Kldwt_Q286mCa91GrV2eLR9b92n0zHi5PEAE9a9bW2CZL3DO502vou3GByGYcgvh_uMPgVwHV6Bm_J53NikR0g64LWfS7xAJwb6qC9_6zn6eHx4Xz0Xr29PL6v716JlNU0Fb5saSCM4YZx1Mu9cN7LVtC1BdnVZCiMM1AD5-7wiAFTUYl130khDpdEVO0fXh75D8F97HZPa-n1weaQqS8ZEzbmUmRIHqg0-xqCNGoLdQZgUJWo2rP4Mq9mw-jWcc3eHnHXGhx2MPvSdSjD1PpgsoLVRsf9b_AA-d4QA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2233574488</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Convergent validity between willingness to pay elicitation methods: an application to Grand Canyon whitewater boaters</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles)</source><creator>Neher, Christopher ; Bair, Lucas ; Duffield, John ; Patterson, David ; Neher, Katherine</creator><creatorcontrib>Neher, Christopher ; Bair, Lucas ; Duffield, John ; Patterson, David ; Neher, Katherine</creatorcontrib><description>We directly compare trip willingness to pay (WTP) values between dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DCCV) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) stated preference surveys of private party Grand Canyon whitewater boaters. The consistency of DCCV and DCE estimates is debated in the literature, and this study contributes to the body of work comparing the methods. Comparisons were made of mean WTP estimates for four hypothetical Colorado River flow-level scenarios. Boaters were found to most highly value mid-range flows, with very low and very high flows eliciting lower WTP estimates across both DCE and DCCV surveys. Mean WTP precision was estimated through simulation. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two methods at three of the four hypothetical flow levels.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0964-0568</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1360-0559</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2018.1435411</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Routledge</publisher><subject>Contingent valuation ; Convergent validity ; Discrete choice ; Elicitation ; Estimates ; Grand Canyon ; Polls & surveys ; River flow ; Rivers ; Simulation ; Statistical analysis ; Trip estimation ; Trip generation ; Valuation ; Values ; White water ; whitewater ; Willingness to pay</subject><ispartof>Journal of environmental planning and management, 2019-03, Vol.62 (4), p.611-625</ispartof><rights>2018 Newcastle University 2018</rights><rights>2018 Newcastle University</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-4c97a09540343d8005798ce1c2a8d7225f5fa7aa640460aa1575b7d8f8f18fe63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-4c97a09540343d8005798ce1c2a8d7225f5fa7aa640460aa1575b7d8f8f18fe63</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1881-9893</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09640568.2018.1435411$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2018.1435411$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27866,27924,27925,59647,60436</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Neher, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bair, Lucas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duffield, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neher, Katherine</creatorcontrib><title>Convergent validity between willingness to pay elicitation methods: an application to Grand Canyon whitewater boaters</title><title>Journal of environmental planning and management</title><description>We directly compare trip willingness to pay (WTP) values between dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DCCV) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) stated preference surveys of private party Grand Canyon whitewater boaters. The consistency of DCCV and DCE estimates is debated in the literature, and this study contributes to the body of work comparing the methods. Comparisons were made of mean WTP estimates for four hypothetical Colorado River flow-level scenarios. Boaters were found to most highly value mid-range flows, with very low and very high flows eliciting lower WTP estimates across both DCE and DCCV surveys. Mean WTP precision was estimated through simulation. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two methods at three of the four hypothetical flow levels.</description><subject>Contingent valuation</subject><subject>Convergent validity</subject><subject>Discrete choice</subject><subject>Elicitation</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Grand Canyon</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>River flow</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Trip estimation</subject><subject>Trip generation</subject><subject>Valuation</subject><subject>Values</subject><subject>White water</subject><subject>whitewater</subject><subject>Willingness to pay</subject><issn>0964-0568</issn><issn>1360-0559</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1PxCAQhonRxPXjJ5iQeO4KBVrqSbPxKzHxomcy24LLpgsVWJv-e2lWr54mwPPODA9CV5QsKZHkhjQVJ6KSy5JQuaScCU7pEVpQVpGCCNEco8XMFDN0is5i3BJCBKPVAu1X3n3r8Kldwt_Q286mCa91GrV2eLR9b92n0zHi5PEAE9a9bW2CZL3DO502vou3GByGYcgvh_uMPgVwHV6Bm_J53NikR0g64LWfS7xAJwb6qC9_6zn6eHx4Xz0Xr29PL6v716JlNU0Fb5saSCM4YZx1Mu9cN7LVtC1BdnVZCiMM1AD5-7wiAFTUYl130khDpdEVO0fXh75D8F97HZPa-n1weaQqS8ZEzbmUmRIHqg0-xqCNGoLdQZgUJWo2rP4Mq9mw-jWcc3eHnHXGhx2MPvSdSjD1PpgsoLVRsf9b_AA-d4QA</recordid><startdate>20190321</startdate><enddate>20190321</enddate><creator>Neher, Christopher</creator><creator>Bair, Lucas</creator><creator>Duffield, John</creator><creator>Patterson, David</creator><creator>Neher, Katherine</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1881-9893</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190321</creationdate><title>Convergent validity between willingness to pay elicitation methods: an application to Grand Canyon whitewater boaters</title><author>Neher, Christopher ; Bair, Lucas ; Duffield, John ; Patterson, David ; Neher, Katherine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-4c97a09540343d8005798ce1c2a8d7225f5fa7aa640460aa1575b7d8f8f18fe63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Contingent valuation</topic><topic>Convergent validity</topic><topic>Discrete choice</topic><topic>Elicitation</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Grand Canyon</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>River flow</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Trip estimation</topic><topic>Trip generation</topic><topic>Valuation</topic><topic>Values</topic><topic>White water</topic><topic>whitewater</topic><topic>Willingness to pay</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Neher, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bair, Lucas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duffield, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neher, Katherine</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of environmental planning and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Neher, Christopher</au><au>Bair, Lucas</au><au>Duffield, John</au><au>Patterson, David</au><au>Neher, Katherine</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Convergent validity between willingness to pay elicitation methods: an application to Grand Canyon whitewater boaters</atitle><jtitle>Journal of environmental planning and management</jtitle><date>2019-03-21</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>611</spage><epage>625</epage><pages>611-625</pages><issn>0964-0568</issn><eissn>1360-0559</eissn><abstract>We directly compare trip willingness to pay (WTP) values between dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DCCV) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) stated preference surveys of private party Grand Canyon whitewater boaters. The consistency of DCCV and DCE estimates is debated in the literature, and this study contributes to the body of work comparing the methods. Comparisons were made of mean WTP estimates for four hypothetical Colorado River flow-level scenarios. Boaters were found to most highly value mid-range flows, with very low and very high flows eliciting lower WTP estimates across both DCE and DCCV surveys. Mean WTP precision was estimated through simulation. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two methods at three of the four hypothetical flow levels.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/09640568.2018.1435411</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1881-9893</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0964-0568 |
| ispartof | Journal of environmental planning and management, 2019-03, Vol.62 (4), p.611-625 |
| issn | 0964-0568 1360-0559 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2233574488 |
| source | PAIS Index; Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles) |
| subjects | Contingent valuation Convergent validity Discrete choice Elicitation Estimates Grand Canyon Polls & surveys River flow Rivers Simulation Statistical analysis Trip estimation Trip generation Valuation Values White water whitewater Willingness to pay |
| title | Convergent validity between willingness to pay elicitation methods: an application to Grand Canyon whitewater boaters |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T19%3A50%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Convergent%20validity%20between%20willingness%20to%20pay%20elicitation%20methods:%20an%20application%20to%20Grand%20Canyon%20whitewater%20boaters&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20environmental%20planning%20and%20management&rft.au=Neher,%20Christopher&rft.date=2019-03-21&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=611&rft.epage=625&rft.pages=611-625&rft.issn=0964-0568&rft.eissn=1360-0559&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/09640568.2018.1435411&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_infor%3E2233574488%3C/proquest_infor%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2233574488&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |