1995
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing Three Approaches That Generate Bids for the Referendum Contingent Valuation Method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Cooper (1994) has demonstrated how to use the Krinsky and Robb method and Efron's percentile method, to construct confidence intervals around the welfare measure (Cooper, 1994;Efron, 1987;Krinsky and Robb, 1986). An optimal survey design for the DC question was selected to minimize the mean square error of the welfare measure and estimated using the DWEABS routine provided by Cooper (1993a) (Cooper, 1993b;Elnagheeb and Jordan, 1995).…”
Section: The Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cooper (1994) has demonstrated how to use the Krinsky and Robb method and Efron's percentile method, to construct confidence intervals around the welfare measure (Cooper, 1994;Efron, 1987;Krinsky and Robb, 1986). An optimal survey design for the DC question was selected to minimize the mean square error of the welfare measure and estimated using the DWEABS routine provided by Cooper (1993a) (Cooper, 1993b;Elnagheeb and Jordan, 1995).…”
Section: The Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead we end up with a wide range of monetary values, which need to be converted into a statistical probability distribution function before any analysis can be performed and monetary WTP values derived. It is this conversion of a continuous series of bid amounts into a limited set of discrete bid levels, which may give rise to discussion in view of the fact that we do not impose any distributional assumptions during the bid vector design procedure as per Cooper [1993] or Elnagheeb and Jordan [1995].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the basis of the frequency distribution of this continuum of bid amounts and using an arbitrary acceptance rate of the highest bid as a truncation rule (e.g., 20%) in order to avoid possible fat tail problems [Kriesel and Randall, 1986], we design a posteriori instead of a priori, in what Elnagheeb and Jordan [1995] would refer to as an ad hoc approach, a number of alternative bid vectors (three alternative approaches exist in the literature for optimal DC bid selection based on open-ended WTP pretest results and distributional assumptions [see Elnagheeb and Jordan, 1995]). …”
Section: Bid Vector Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A more recent proposal by Elnagheeb and Jordan (1995) is based on the Tchebysheff inequality principle and requires only the estimation of the maximum and minimum bids, b s and b 1 , respectively (WTP mean and standard deviation estimates obtained from a pre-test may be incorporated to define the bid vector). On the grounds of a comparison-by simulation-of this procedure to the Boyle et al approach (1988) and the DWEABS ('distribution with equal area bid selection') method proposed by Cooper (1993), described below, these authors recommend the use of either the Cooper et al (1993) or the Boyle et al (1988) procedures to determine the bid vector, although they express a preference for the latter, as it is more readily implemented.…”
Section: Empirical Designsmentioning
confidence: 99%