意愿调查法中的偏好不确定性研究综述

doi:10.18402/resci.2019.12.16

Abstract

Abstract:

Economic valuation of non-market goods and services, such as improvement of environmental quality and conservation of natural resources, is a methodologically strong challenge to economists. As a primary method of economic valuation of non-market goods, the contingent valuation method, CVM, has been continuously tested and improved. One of the improvements is the change of assumption from certain preferences to uncertain preferences. This article first summarizes the reasons of uncertain preferences and potential problems caused by ignoring the uncertainty nature of preferences in contingent valuation studies. In order to have a better understanding about the issues, this article also provides a systematic review of the measurement techniques of uncertain preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimation models where the respondents’ uncertain information is incorporated. Both advantages and disadvantages of different methods are summarized. Also analyzed are the impacts of incorporating uncertain preferences on the magnitude of the estimates as well as the estimation efficiency. In general, there is a consensus among researchers on the uncertainty characteristic of respondents’ preferences. The opinion that individuals’ WTP should be a random variable with a specific distribution is generally accepted. Most of the researchers believe that information about uncertainty obtained through specific techniques is valuable for calibrating WTP estimates and more attention should be paid to the accuracy of uncertainty estimation to improve the efficiency of WTP estimation. Suggestions about future research, such as studying on heterogeneity of individuals’ uncertain preferences and improving the survey design and implementation, are provided at the end of the article.

Key words: contingent valuation method, uncertain preferences, random valuation, uncertainty measurement, willingness-to-pay estimation, review

SU Hongyan, WANG Hua. A review of preference uncertainty in contingent valuation method[J].Resources Science, 2019, 41(12): 2327-2341.

Figures/Tables 9

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Table 4

Table 5

References 102

[1]	敖长林, 高丹, 毛碧琦 , 等. 空间尺度下公众对环境保护的支付意愿度量方法及实证研究[J]. 资源科学, 2015,37(11):2288-2298.
	[ Ao C L, Gao D, Mao B Q , et al. Methods for measuring public willingness to pay for environmental conservation and empirical research under spatial scale[J]. Resources Science, 2015,37(11):2288-2298.]
[2]	王朋薇, 韩丽荣, 周睿 , 等. 协商式CVM在资源非使用价值评估中的应用研究: 以内蒙古达赉湖自然保护区为例[J]. 资源科学, 2017,39(5):902-910. doi: 10.18402/resci.2017.05.10
	[ Wang P W, Han L R, Zhou R , et al. Application of the deliberation contingent valuation method to the non-use value of resources in the Dalai Lake Protected Area[J]. Resources Science, 2017,39(5):902-910.] doi: 10.18402/resci.2017.05.10
[3]	潘存远, 吴纪华 . 上海市居民对崇明东滩鸟类栖息地生境优化支付意愿分析[J]. 湿地科学, 2019,17(4):463-469.
	[ Pan C Y, Wu J H . Analysis on willingness of Shanghai residents to pay for optimization of bird habitat in Dongtan, Chongming Island[J]. Wetland Science, 2019,17(4):463-469.]
[4]	肖建红, 高雪, 胡金焱 , 等. 群岛旅游地海洋旅游资源非使用价值支付意愿偏好研究: 以山东庙岛群岛、浙江舟山群岛和海南三亚及其岛屿为例[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019,29(8):168-176.
	[ Xiao J H, Gao X, Hu J Y , et al. A study on the preferences in the public’s willingness to pay for conserving the non-use values of marine tourism resources in archipelago tourism destinations: Based on cases of Miaodao Archipelago of Shandong, Zhoushan Archipelago of Zhejiang, and Sanya and its islands of Hainan[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2019,29(8):168-176.]
[5]	游巍斌, 何东进, 洪伟 , 等. 基于条件价值法的武夷山风景名胜区遗产资源非使用价值评估[J]. 资源科学, 2014,36(9):1880-1888.
	[ You W B, He D J, Hong W , et al. The non-use value of heritage resources in Wuyishan scenery district using the contingent valuation method[J]. Resources Science, 2014,36(9):1880-1888.]
[6]	Pindyck R, Rubinfeld D . Microeconomics[M]. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.
[7]	Hanemann W M, Kriström B, Li C. Nonmarket Valuation under Preference Uncertainty: Econometric Models and Estimation[C]. Umea: The Annual Meeting of the European Association of Environmental & Resource Economists, 1995.
[8]	Li C Z, Mattson L . Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1995,28(2):256-269. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1017
[9]	Ready R C, Whitehead J C, Blomquist G C . Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1995,29(2):181-196. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1040
[10]	Wang H . Treatment of “don’t-know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1997,32(2):219-232. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0965
[11]	Wang H . Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: A Stochastic Perspective[D]. Chapel Hill: University of N. Carolina, 1997.
[12]	Vossler C A, Ethier R G, Poe G L , et al. Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: Results from a field validity test[J]. Southern Economic Journal, 2003,69(4):886-902. doi: 10.2307/1061656
[13]	Evans M F, Flores N E, Boyle K J . Multiple-bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions[J]. Land Economics, 2003,79(4):549-560. doi: 10.2307/3147299
[14]	Kobayashi M, Moeltner K, Rollins K . Latent thresholds analysis of choice data under value uncertainty[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2012,94(1):189-208. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aar129
[15]	柳荻, 胡振通, 靳乐山 . 基于农户受偿意愿的地下水超采区休耕补偿标准研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019,29(8):130-139.
	[ Liu D, Hu Z T, Jin L S . Study on compensation rate for fallow program in groundwater over-exploited area based on rural households’ willingness to accept[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2019,29(8):130-139.]
[16]	李云驹, 许建初, 潘剑君 . 松华坝流域生态补偿标准和效率研究[J]. 资源科学, 2011,33(12):2370-2375.
	[ Li Y J, Xu J C, Pan J J . Discussion on standards and efficiency of payment for ecosystem services in the Songhuaba Watershed[J]. Resources Science, 2011,33(12):2370-2375.]
[17]	李京梅, 许志华, 姚海燕 , 等. 胶州湾围填海生态损害评估: 支付卡和单边界二分法的比较[J]. 海洋环境科学, 2014,33(4):562-567.
	[ Li J M, Xu Z H, Yao H Y , et al. Ecological damage evaluation for reclamation in Jiaozhou Bay: Based on the comparison of payment card and single-bounded dichotomous choice[J]. Marine Environmental Science, 2014,33(4):562-567.]
[18]	张明军, 孙美平, 姚晓军 , 等. 不确定性影响下的平均支付意愿参数估计[J]. 生态学报, 2007,27(9):3852-3859.
	[ Zhang M J, Sun M P, Yao X J , et al. Parameter estimation of average willingness to pay under uncertainty effect[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007,27(9):3852-3859.]
[19]	Broberg T, Brännlund R . An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data: Certainty dependent payment card intervals[J]. Resource and Energy Economics, 2008,30(4):555-567. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.09.001
[20]	Ndambiri H, Brouwer R, Mungatana E . Comparing welfare estimates across stated preference and uncertainty elicitation formats for air quality improvements in Nairobi, Kenya[J]. Environment and Development Economics, 2016,21(5):649-668. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X15000455
[21]	Champ P A, Boyle K J, Brown T C . A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation[M]. Dordrecht: Springer, 2017.
[22]	Shaikh S L, Sun L, van Kooten G C . Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments[J]. Ecological Economics, 2007,62(1):115-125. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.016
[23]	Bateman I J, Burgess D, Hutchinson W G , et al. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2008,55(2):127-141. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2007.08.003
[24]	Hanley N, Kriström B, Shogren J F . Coherent arbitrariness: On value uncertainty for environmental goods[J]. Land Economics, 2009,85(1):41-50. doi: 10.3368/le.85.1.41
[25]	Spash C L, Hanley N . Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation[J]. Ecological Economics, 1995,12(3):191-208. doi: 10.1111/brv.12227 pmid: 26526656
[26]	Common M, Reid I, Blamey R . Do existence values for cost-benefit analysis exist?[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1997,9(2):225-238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085411 pmid: 24386474
[27]	Rekola M . Lexicographic preferences in contingent valuation: A theoretical framework with illustrations[J]. Land Economics, 2003,79(2):277-291. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-79-2-277 pmid: 4726540
[28]	Voltaire L, Pirrone C, Bailly D . Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach[J]. Ecological Economics, 2013,88(3):76-85. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.009
[29]	McVittie A, Moran D, Elston D . Public preferences for rural policy reform: Evidence from Scottish surveys[J]. Regional Studies, 2010,44(5):609-626. doi: 10.1080/00343400902926359
[30]	Dost F, Wilken R . Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: When should we care?[J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2012,29(2):148-166. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.09.003
[31]	Bayrak O K, Kriström B . Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations[J]. Economics Bulletin, 2016,36(1):218-236.
[32]	Wang P W, Ya J, Zhong L S , et al. Respondent uncertainty and reliability in contingent valuation: A case of the Dalai Lake Protected Area[J]. Limnologica-Ecology and Management of Inland Waters, 2016,58:59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.limno.2016.02.004
[33]	Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P R , et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation[J]. Federal Register, 1993,58(10):4601-4614.
[34]	Carson R T, Hanemann W M, Kopp R J , et al. Referendum design and contingent valuation: The NOAA panel’s No-Vote recommendation[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1998,80(2):335-338. doi: 10.1162/003465398557429
[35]	Haener M K, Adamowicz W L . Analysis of “Don’t Know” responses in referendum contingent valuation questions[J]. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 1998,27(2):219-230.
[36]	Groothuis P A, Whitehead J C . Does don’t know mean no? Analysis of “Don’t Know” responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions[J]. Applied Economics, 2002,34(15):1935-1940. doi: 10.1080/00036840210128717
[37]	Krosnick J A, Holbrook A L, Berent M K , et al. The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice?[J]. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2002,66(3):371-403. doi: 10.1086/341394
[38]	Alberini A, Boyle K, Welsh M . Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2003,45(1):40-62. doi: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00010-4
[39]	Vossler C A, Kerkvliet J, Polasky S , et al. Externally validating contingent valuation: An open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2003,51(2):261-277. doi: 10.3390/insects11010021 pmid: 31881775
[40]	Vossler C A, Kerkvliet J . A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2003,45(3):631-649. doi: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00017-7
[41]	Caudill S B, Groothuis P A . Modeling hidden alternatives in random utility models: An application to “don’t know” responses in contingent valuation[J]. Land Economics, 2005,81(3):445-454. doi: 10.1002/1097-4644(20010601)81:3&lt;445::aid-jcb1058&gt;3.0.co;2-2 pmid: 11255227
[42]	Samnaliev M, Stevens T H, More T . A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation[J]. Ecological Economics, 2006,57(3):507-519. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.017
[43]	Bradburn N M, Sudman S . Polls & Surveys: Understanding What They Tell Us[M]. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988.
[44]	Carson R T, Hanemann W M . Contingent valuation[J]. Handbook of Environmental Economics, 2006,2:821-936. doi: 10.1002/hec.3983 pmid: 31828891
[45]	Champ P A, Brown T C. A Comparison of Contingent and Actual Voting Behavior[C]. Portland: Proceedings from W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, 1997.
[46]	Champ P A, Bishop R C, Brown T C , et al. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1997,33(2):151-162. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1997.0988
[47]	Champ P A, Bishop R C . Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: An empirical study of hypothetical bias[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2001,19(4):383-402.
[48]	Johannesson M, Liljas B, Johansson P . An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions[J]. Applied Economics, 1998,30(5):643-647. doi: 10.1080/000368498325633
[49]	Ethier R G, Poe G L, Schulze W D , et al. A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs[J]. Land Economics, 2000,76(1):54-67. doi: 10.2307/3147257
[50]	Poe G L, Clark J E, Rondeau D , et al. Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002,23(1):105-131. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.149 pmid: 29272832
[51]	Loureiro M, Loomis J. Dealing with Preference Uncertainty in Contingent Valuation: A Mixture Model Approach[C]. Gothemburg: The European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 16th Annual Conference, 2008.
[52]	Martínez-Espiñeira R, Lyssenko N . Alternative approaches to dealing with respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparative analysis[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2012,93(1):130-139. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.09.008
[53]	Johannesson M, Blomquist G C, Blumenschein K , et al. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1999,18(1):21-32. doi: 10.1023/A:1007708326467
[54]	Ready R C, Navrud S, Dubourg W R . How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions?[J]. Land Economics, 2001,77(3):315-326. doi: 10.2307/3147126
[55]	Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist G C , et al. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation[J]. Southern Economic Journal, 1998,65(1):169-177. doi: 10.2307/1061360
[56]	Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama K K , et al. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: Results from a field experiment[J]. Journal of Health Economics, 2001,20(3):441-457. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00075-3 pmid: 11373840
[57]	Blomquist G C, Johannesson M, Blumenschein K , et al. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment[J]. The Economic Journal, 2008,118(525):114-137. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02106.x
[58]	Akter S, Brouwer R, Brander L , et al. Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets[J]. Ecological Economics, 2009,68(6):1858-1863. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.013
[59]	Logar I, van den Bergh J C J M . Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation of preventing beach erosion: An analysis with a polychotomous choice question[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2012,113:184-193. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.012
[60]	Poder T G, He J . Willingness to pay and the sensitivity of willingness to pay for interdisciplinary musculoskeletal clinics: A contingent valuation study in Quebec, Canada[J]. International Journal of Health Economics and Management, 2016,16(4):337-361. doi: 10.1007/s10754-016-9193-5 pmid: 27878690
[61]	Loomis J B, Ekstrand E . Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: The case of the Mexican spotted owl[J]. Ecological Economics, 1998,27(1):29-41. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00126-2
[62]	Roe B, Boyle K, Teisl M . Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1996,31:145-159. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0037
[63]	Boman M . To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests: What scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options?[J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2009,15(1-2):79-91. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01185-x pmid: 31883099
[64]	Manski C . Measuring expectations[J]. Econometrica, 2004,72(5):1329-1376. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_752_19 pmid: 31879650
[65]	Saris W . Variation in response functions: A source of measurement error in attitude research[J]. Sociometric Research Foundation, 1988,3:2-10.
[66]	Welsh M P, Bishop R M . Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Models[A]. Bergstrom J. Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resource Planning[M]. Atlanta: Western Regional Research Publication, 1993.
[67]	Welsh M P, Poe G L . Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: Comparison to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1998,36(2):170-185. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1998.1043
[68]	Cameron T A, Poe G L, Ethier R G , et al. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same?[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2002,44(3):391-425. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1210
[69]	Wang H, Whittington D . Measuring individuals’ valuation distributions using a stochastic payment card approach[J]. Ecological Economics, 2005,55(2):143-154. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.11.011
[70]	Ichoku H E, Fonta W M, Kedir A . Measuring individuals’ valuation distributions using a stochastic payment card approach: Application to solid waste management in Nigeria[J]. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2009,11(3):509-521. doi: 10.1007/s10668-007-9127-y
[71]	Wang H, He J . Estimating individual valuation distributions with multiple bounded discrete choice data[J]. Applied Economics, 2010,43(21):2641-2656. doi: 10.1080/00036840903299789
[72]	Wang H, He J . Implicit individual discount rate in China: A contingent valuation study[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018,210:51-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.058 pmid: 29331626
[73]	Fonta W M, Ichoku H E, Ogujiuba K K . Estimating willingness to pay with the stochastic payment card design: Further evidence from rural Cameroon[J]. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2010,12(2):179-193. doi: 10.1007/s10668-009-9188-1
[74]	Domínguez-Torreiro M, Soliño M . Pricing a rural development program: Uncertainty, indifference, and protest behaviors[J]. Agricultural Economics, 2016,47(5):559-569. doi: 10.1111/agec.2016.47.issue-5
[75]	Roach B, Boyle K J, Welsh M . Testing bid design effects in multiple-bounded, contingent-valuation questions[J]. Land Economics, 2002,78(1):121-131. doi: 10.2307/3146927
[76]	Mentzakis E, McNamee P, Ryan M . Incorporating Uncertainty into Payment Card Contingent Valuation Experiments[D]. Hamilton: McMaster University, 2010.
[77]	Vossler C, McKee M . Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2006,35(2):137-168. doi: 10.1007/s10640-006-9011-5
[78]	Wang H, He J, Kim Y , et al. Willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements in Chinese rivers: An empirical test on the ordering effects of multiple-bounded discrete choices[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2013,131:256-269. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.034
[79]	Johnson D R, Creech J C . Ordinal measures in multiple indicator models: A simulation study of categorization error[J]. American Sociological Review, 1983,48(3):398-407. doi: 10.2307/2095231
[80]	Joneslee M W, Loomes G, Philips P R . Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: Contingent valuation versus standard gambles[J]. Oxford Economic Papers, 1995,47(4):676-695. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a042193
[81]	Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd. Evaluation of Water Level Changes in River Ouse[R]. London: Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd, 1998.
[82]	Maddison D, Mourato S . Valuing different road options for Stonehenge[J]. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 2001,4(4):203-212. doi: 10.1179/135050301793138182
[83]	HÂkansson C . A new valuation question: Analysis of and insights from interval open ended data in contingent valuation[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2008,39(2):175-188. doi: 10.1007/s10640-007-9102-y
[84]	Hess S, Giergiczny M . Intra-respondent heterogeneity in a stated choice survey on wetland conservation in Belarus: First steps towards creating a link with uncertainty in contingent valuation[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2015,60(3):327-347. doi: 10.1007/s10640-014-9769-9
[85]	Bateman I J, Cooper P, Georgiou S , et al. Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: Examining validity through scope sensitivity testing[J]. Aquatic Sciences, 2005,67(3):274-291. doi: 10.1007/s00027-004-0744-3
[86]	Carson R T, Hanemann W M, Mitchell R C . The Use of Simulated Political Markets to Value Public Goods[M]. San Diego: University of California, 1986.
[87]	Champ P A, Alberini A, Correas I . Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: The effects of including an unsure response category[J]. Ecological Economics, 2005,55(1):47-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.011
[88]	Ekstrand E R, Loomis J . Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish[J]. Water Resources Research, 1998,34(11):3149-3155. doi: 10.1029/98WR02164
[89]	Blomquist G C, Blumenschein K, Johannesson M . Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: Comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2009,43(4):473-502. doi: 10.1007/s10640-008-9242-8
[90]	Johnston R J, Boyle K J, Adamowicz W , et al. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies[J]. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2017,4(2):319-405. doi: 10.1086/691697
[91]	Norwood F B . Can calibration reconcile stated and observed preferences?[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 2005,37(1):237-248. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800007227
[92]	Moore R, Bishop R C, Provencher B , et al. Accounting for respondent uncertainty to improve willingness-to-pay estimates[J]. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie, 2010,58(3):381-401.
[93]	Murphy J J, Stevens T H . Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias and experimental economics[J]. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 2004,33(2):182-192. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.04.015 pmid: 31108330
[94]	Lundhede T H, Olsen S B, Jacobsen J B . Handling respondent uncertainty in choice experiments: Evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modelling of uncertainty[J]. Journal of Choice Modelling, 2009,2(2):118-147. doi: 10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70007-1
[95]	Vossler C A, Poe G L . Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty: A comment[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2005,49:197-200. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2004.05.001
[96]	Wang H, Shi Y, Kim Y , et al. Valuing water quality improvement in China: A case study of Lake Puzhehei in Yunnan Province[J]. Ecological Economics, 2013,94:56-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.006
[97]	Wang H, He J, Kim Y , et al. Municipal solid waste management in rural areas and small counties: An economic analysis using contingent valuation to estimate willingness to pay for Yunnan, China[J]. Waste Management & Research, 2014,32(8):695-706. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010177 pmid: 31881797
[98]	Wang H, Shi Y, Kim Y , et al. Economic value of water quality improvement by one grade level in Erhai Lake: A willingness-to-pay survey and a benefit-transfer study[J]. Frontiers of Economics in China, 2015,10(1):168-199.
[99]	Chang J, Yoo S, Kwak S . An investigation of preference uncertainty in the contingent valuation study[J]. Applied Economics Letters, 2007,14(9):691-695. doi: 10.1080/13504850600592713
[100]	Whitehead J C, Huang J C, Blomquist G C , et al. Construct validity of dichotomous and polychotomous choice contingent valuation questions[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1998,11(1):107-116. doi: 10.1023/A:1008231430184
[101]	Berrens R P, Jenkins-Smith H, Bohara A K , et al. Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: Fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2002,44(1):144-168. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1193
[102]	Samuelson L . Economic theory and experimental economics[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2005,43(1):65-107. doi: 10.1265/jjh.19018 pmid: 31875631

临界点	作者
5	Martínez-Espi?eira等^[52]
6	Wang等^[32]
7	Ethier 等^[49];Poe等^[50];Vossler等^[40]
8	Champ等^[45];Champ等^[47];Poe等^[50];Samnaliev等^[42]
9	Loureiro等^[51]
10	Champ等^[45];Ekstrand等^[88];Samnaliev等^[42];Blomquist等^[89]

确定性类别数	作者	类别定义	处理方法
2	Blumenschein 等^[55,56]	非常确定,一般确定	把“一般确定”的“是”重新定义为“否”
	Johannesson等^[48]	非常确定,一般确定	同Blumenschein等的处理方法
	Blomquist等^[89]	非常确定,可能确定	把“可能确定”的“是”重新定义为“否”
5	Logar等^[59]	非常相信,相信,中立,不是很相信,不相信	把 “相信”及以下确定水平的“是”均视为缺失值或“否”
6	Ready等^[9]	肯定是,可能是,或许是,或许否,可能否,肯定否	分别把“可能是”和“或许是”确定水平以下的“是”重新定义为“否”

作者	评价物品/服务	其他处理方法	其他方法所得WTP_oth	视为“否”所得WTP_no	WTP_oth/ WTP_no
Wang^[10]	加尔维斯顿湾环境质量改善项目	保留中间反应（随机价值模型）	11.860	2.647	4.48
		保留中间反应（有序Probit模型）	11.438	2.647	4.32
		视为缺失值	10.243	2.647	3.87
Haener等^[35]	古老森林保护项目	视为缺失值	121.64	69.39	1.75
Haener等^[35]	古老森林保护项目	重新划分为“是”和“否”	89.94	69.39	1.30
Caudill等^[41]	狼管理计划	视为缺失值	8.69	4.70	1.85
Caudill等^[41]	狼管理计划	重新划分后视为缺失值	6.39	4.70	1.36
Champ等^[87]	控制国家森林中侵袭性植物种类或有毒杂草	重新划分为“是”	140.61	61.65	2.28
		视为缺失值	103.61	61.65	1.68
		保留中间反应（随机价值模型）	102.36	61.65	1.66

作者	评价物品/服务	MBDC处理技术	MBDC所得WTP_M	标准DC所得WTP_D	WTP_M/WTP_D
Vossler等^[12]	清洁能源计划	Welsh-Poe的DY模型	1.76	4.57	0.39
		Welsh-Poe的PY模型	3.23	4.57	0.71
		Welsh-Poe的NS模型	7.14	4.57	1.56
Evans等^[13]	格伦峡谷坝的非使用价值	不确定性决策估计模型	102.06	121.34	0.84
Evans等^[13]	格伦峡谷坝的非使用价值	Welsh-Poe的NS模型	120.29	121.34	0.99
Roach等^[75]	猎人对捕获驼鹿的支付意愿	Welsh-Bishop的模型	748	988	0.76

A review of preference uncertainty in contingent valuation method

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Cited

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 102

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

每月成本（$）	肯定支付	可能支付						不确定	可能不支付							肯定不支付
每月成本（$）	肯定支付	A		B		C	D	不确定	A		B		C		D	肯定不支付
0	1.0	0.9	0.8		0.7		0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3		0.2		0.1		0
2	1.0	0.9	0.8		0.7		0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3		0.2		0.1		0
4	1.0	0.9	0.8		0.7		0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3		0.2		0.1		0
6	1.0	0.9	0.8		0.7		0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3		0.2		0.1		0
8	1.0	0.9	0.8		0.7		0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3		0.2		0.1		0
10	1.0	0.9	0.8		0.7		0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3		0.2		0.1		0
12	1.0	0.9	0.8		0.7		0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3		0.2		0.1		0
…	…	…	…		…		…	…	…	…		…		…		…
100	1.0	0.9	0.8		0.7		0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3		0.2		0.1		0

[1]	WU Qiaosheng, ZHOU Na, CHENG Jinhua. A review and prospects of the supply security of strategic key minerals [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(8): 1439-1451.
[2]	LI Jingmei, SHAN Jingzhu, DENG Yuncheng, XU Handuo. Uncertainty bias and its correction in contingent valuation method: A case study of marine biodiversity valuation in Pingtan County [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(7): 1338-1347.
[3]	HE Siyuan, LI Heyao, MIN Qingwen. Value and conservation actors of Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IAHS) from the perspective of rural households [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(5): 870-880.
[4]	LI Jingmei, DING Zhongxian, XU Wanting, XU Zhihua, SHAN Jingzhu. National park ticket pricing based on double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation method for the Jiaozhou Bay National Marine Park [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(2): 232-241.
[5]	YUAN Xing, KONG Chang, WANG Li, WEI Binggan, LI Hairong, YANG Linsheng. Problems and countermeasures of drinking water safety provision in rural areas of the Yellow River Basin [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(1): 69-77.
[6]	LI Huanhuan, SONG Wei, ZHANG Yan. Review of data preparation for rural settlement evolution research [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(4): 689-700.
[7]	Chang WANG, Huiling SONG, Hongjun GENG, Yifang ZHOU, Cuihong ZHANG. Review and prospect of advanced material innovative development [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(2): 207-218.
[8]	JIANG Yu, PU Lijie, ZHU Ming, HUANG Sihua, LIU Rongjuan. Progress and review of the research of farmland requisition-compensation balance in China [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(12): 2342-2355.
[9]	Yimin FU, Jinlong LIU, Jiacheng ZHAO. Review of forest policy research progress and theory frameworks [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(6): 1106-1118.
[10]	Fangqu NIU, Zhiming FENG, Hui LIU. A review on evaluating methods of regional resources and environment carrying capacity [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(4): 655-663.
[11]	Jiao HUANG, Shuangcheng LI. A review of change in agricultural multifunctionality in metropolitan areas under rapid urbanization in China [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(4): 664-.
[12]	Xin CHENG, Chuanmin SHUAI, Jing WANG, Wenjing LI, Yue LIU. The impact of eco-environment and disaster factors on poverty: a review [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(4): 676-.
[13]	Ruyin LONG, Jiahui YANG. Research status and prospect of national mineral resource security [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(3): 465-476.
[14]	Jia LIU, Ning LIU. Evaluating the environmental value loss of coastal tourism and influencing infactors under the influence of Enteromorpha prolifera disasters at the bathing beaches in Qingdao [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(2): 392-403.
[15]	Yebing FANG, Limao WANG, Qiushi QU, Yan YANG, Chufu MOU. A review of research on energy geopolitics in China [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(6): 1037-1047.