Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation

A significant number of respondents to contingent valuation surveys tend to either state a zero bid, or refuse to state a bid at all, for reasons associated with the process of valuation. These protest responses are routinely removed from contingent valuation samples because it is assumed that they are not indicative of respondents’ ‘true’ values. The censoring of protest responses has led to the emergence of a definitional controversy. One view is that the definition of protest responses and the rules for censoring them are dependent on whether the practitioner conceives of the contingent valuation survey as a market or as a referendum. However, what is not acknowledged is the possibility that protest responses and their meaning may vary according to the type of good being valued, the elicitation format, and the interaction between these elements and external factors. This potential renders the development of unambiguous rules for censoring protest responses difficult. Moreover, when willingness to pay is viewed as a behavioural intention, it becomes important to determine what the responses actually mean. This approach does not assume an interpretative position a priori against which the responses should be judged, but seeks to inform an existing understanding which is inadequate.

[1]  Campbell K Aitken Results of an International Benchmarking Study of Stormwater Pollution Control , 1995 .

[2]  M. Sagoff,et al.  The Economy of the Earth: The Allocation and Distribution of Resources , 2007 .

[3]  S. M. Tunstall,et al.  Is the economic evaluation of environmental resources possible , 1991 .

[4]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[5]  J. S. Long,et al.  Testing Structural Equation Models , 1993 .

[6]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[7]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide , 1997 .

[8]  A. E. Luloff,et al.  Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation , 1992 .

[9]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression' , 1988 .

[10]  Dale Whittington,et al.  Giving Respondents Time to Think in Contingent Valuation Studies: A Developing Country Application* , 1992 .

[11]  J. S. Long,et al.  Testing Structural Equation Models , 1993 .

[12]  K. Jöreskog,et al.  A panel model for political efficacy and responsiveness: an application of LISREL 7 with weighted least squares , 1990 .

[13]  R. Hoevenagel,et al.  Effects of different descriptions of the ecological good on willingness to pay values , 1993 .

[14]  J. Walter Milon,et al.  Contingent valuation experiments for strategic behavior , 1989 .

[15]  R. Turner,et al.  A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations , 1993 .

[16]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[17]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .

[18]  Jean-Paul Chavas,et al.  Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques , 1985 .

[19]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability , 1993 .

[20]  S. F. Edwards,et al.  Overlooked Biases in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Some Considerations , 1987 .

[21]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility , 1988 .

[22]  Greg Lindsey,et al.  Closure of "Market Models, Protest Bids, and Outliers in Contingent Valuation" , 1995 .