Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Internal Consistency in Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Chapter 2 The Process of Experimentation

Advertisements

Ulams Game and Universal Communications Using Feedback Ofer Shayevitz June 2006.

1 An overview of the potential of environmental valuation to inform protected area management. Dr Mike Christie University of Wales Aberystwyth ICS-UNIDO.

Asymmetric Information and Bubbles: An Experiment Michael Brandner Jürgen Huber Michael Kirchler Matthias Sutter all University of Innsbruck.

Lecture 3 Outline: Thurs, Sept 11 Chapters Probability model for 2-group randomized experiment Randomization test p-value Probability model for.

Uncertainty subgroup ARB Expert Workgroup Recommendations Stephen Kaffka Keith Kline Michelle Manion Richard Nelson Mark Stowers With assistance from Richard.

Uses and Abuses of the Efficient Frontier Michael Schilmoeller Thursday May 19, 2011 SAAC.

Dependent t-tests. Factors affecting statistical power in the t-test Statistical power ability to identify a statistically significant difference when.

1) Introduction Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the estimation of passive use value, was an area of economic research not well known. However, based.

4. Project Investment Decision-Making

Selection of Research Participants: Sampling Procedures

The Research Problem PE 357. Selecting the problem Can be for research or a literature review -To break the problem down more … -needs to be of interest.

30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Workshop1: The possibilities for optimizing the processes of implementation of direct payments Agency.

Paul Scherrer Institut 5232 Villigen PSI NewExt-Project, 26 May 2003 HT40 Referendums in Switzerland and Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) (Work Package 3) T. Heck.

AGEC 608 Lecture 14, p. 1 AGEC 608: Lecture 14 Objective: Provide overview of contingent valuation method (CVM) and review strengths and weaknesses of.

Chapter One of Your Thesis

Measuring Consumption and Poverty in Zambia GSS methodology conference, 27 June 2012.

By: Abdulla Al Jaidah By: Abdulla Al Jaidah. When we take photographs we must pay attention to how the image will look in different print sizes because.

Households’ demand for mitigation of Prosopis Juliflora invasion in the Afar Region of Ethiopia: a contingent valuation Mesfin Tilahun (PhD) Assistant.

Section 2: Science as a Process

Introducing small-group workshops as formative assessment in large first year psychology modules Suzanne Guerin School of Psychology, University College.

Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: Independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes Article Presentation Course 614.

The Economic Value of Ecosystem Conservation in Japan: Reduction of elicitation effect by Bid Effect Function Mitsuyasu YABE Kyushu University.

FAO NAMA learning tool to support NAMA preparation in agriculture

Matthew G. Interis, Mississippi State University Timothy C. Haab, The Ohio State University Willingness to Pay for Environmental Improvements in the Presence.

1 KEY PERSONNEL SUGGESTING FORMAT FELIX E.O OPATA MBA (STRATEGIC PLANNING & MGT.) BSC.HONS.(BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES) DIPLOMA MANAGEMENT (CAMB).

ASSESSING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH CHANGES IN THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY IN THE BOWEN BASIN, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA. Galina Ivanova and.

Applying Contingent Valuation in China Xu Zhongmin, Cheng Guodong, Zhang Zhiqiang, Su Zhiyong Vs Anglers’ WTP For Information About Chemical Residues in.

1 Science as a Process Chapter 1 Section 2. 2 Objectives  Explain how science is different from other forms of human endeavor.  Identify the steps that.

On visible choice set and scope sensitivity: - Dealing with the impact of study design on the scope sensitivity Improving the Practice of Benefit Transfer:

Hermann Pythagore Pierre Donfouet CREM, UMR CNRS 6211 University of Rennes I Pierre Wilner Jeanty Kinder Institute for Urban Research Rice University Eric.

Putting Economic Value to Nature Protection Direct and Indirect Costs and Benefits by Gernot Bäurle

Short Informal Reports Incident Reports Field Trip Reports Occasional Progress Reports Periodic Progress Reports Project Completion Reports Inspection.

10.2 Tests of Significance Use confidence intervals when the goal is to estimate the population parameter If the goal is to.

Project EXTENSITY Environmental and Sustainability Management Systems in Extensive Agriculture Guaranteed Sustainability Label:

Contingent Valuation Methods See Boardman et al., Chapter 14 Interview individuals to elicit their preferences for different states of the world. Based.

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES.

GECCO Papers Same research group, different lead authors Same conference Paper 1: Embodied Distributed Evolutionary Algorithm (EDEA) for on-line, on-board.

Experimental evidence of the emergence of aesthetic rules in pure coordination games Federica Alberti (Uea) Creed/Cedex/Uea Meeting Experimental Economics.

Copyright © 2009 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. Chapter 3 Valuing the Environment: Methods.

NAREA Workshop Burlington, VT June 10, 2009 Yohei Mitani 1 Yohei Mitani Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado, Boulder Nicholas.

Introduction to Earth Science Section 2 Section 2: Science as a Process Preview Key Ideas Behavior of Natural Systems Scientific Methods Scientific Measurements.

Lab 9: Two Group Comparisons. Today’s Activities - Evaluating and interpreting differences across groups – Effect sizes Gender differences examples Class.

Review of the Scientific Method Chapter 1. Scientific Method – –Organized, logical approach to scientific research. Not a list of rules, but a general.

Making Decisions about a Population Mean with Confidence Lecture 33 Sections 10.1 – 10.2 Fri, Mar 30, 2007.

EXPERIMENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

CULTURAL STEREOTYPES AND NORM OF RECIPROCITY 11/03/

Comments on: The Evaluation of an Early Intervention Policy in Poor Schools Germano Mwabu June 9-10, 2008 Quebec City, Canada.

Nutrient content of dairy slurry Slurry nutrient variability and nutrient prices Slurry data from UW soils lab (Marshfield, WI) First year available 715.

Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall Chapter Chapter 4: Modeling Decision Processes Decision Support Systems in the.

PREWRITE: STEP 1: Graphic Organizer Describes who the person is Personality Characteristics.

The Valuation of Ecological Goods and Services: A Field Experiment Using the Contingent Valuation Survey Method Matthew A. Wilson a, Thomas A. Heberlein.

Research Methods & Design Outline

Sequences Learning Outcomes  I can Find the n th term for sequences.  I can use different methods to find the nth term and explore sequences  I can.

Native American Heritage Month Presentation [Your Name] [Your Teacher’s Name] [Your School] [Your Grade]

Fuel Economy in Macedonia

What is the meaning of the word suffrage?

CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups

Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Agricultural Technologies: Results from Field Experiment Babati, Tanzania Apurba Shee, Carlo Azzarri and Beliyou.

Section 2: Science as a Process

Presentation 2 Alex Powell

Administrative Instructions – Short Version (Option 2)

Prof. Dr. Claudia Kemfert

CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups

Mahsa Ashabi, Hannah Cummons, Madison Levine, Ashwini Shridhar

Psych 231: Research Methods in Psychology

CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups

CHAPTER 10 Comparing Two Populations or Groups

Solving Problems in Groups

Chul-Oh Shin · Won-Keun Chang Korea Maritime Institute

Presentation transcript:

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Internal Consistency in Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Use of Explicit Decision Rules and Sequential and Advance Revelation Learning Design (LDCV) Claudia D. Aravena Novielli* a Fredrik Carlsson b W. George Hutchinson a Dave Matthews a a. Queen’s University Belfast b. University of Gothenburg Camp Resources XVII Wilmington, June 24-25, 2010

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Introduction Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Anomalies Differences between SB – DB (SBDB Diff ) Advance Revelation Explicit Decision Rules

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Introduction Elicitation Format: Double Bounded Referendum WTP 1000 ? WTP 250? WTP 500? YES NO YES YY YN NY NN

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Background Hannemann et al.1991 popularized DBDC while recognize the DBDC Diff (MWTP SB > MWTP DB ). Carson et al 2009 and Deshazo 2002 outline 7 explanations for the SBDB Diff. Carson et al describes the Difference as stereotypical facts JEEM 2008 following Matthews et al develops a simple test for the significance of the SBDB Diff using resampling methods.

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Introduction JEEM 2008  SBDB Diff reduces in repeated valuations by Institutional Learning (LDCV). JEEM 2004  Introduce Advance Revelation. We use this to effect Institutional Learning and find SBDB Diff is reduced (ARLD). We combine Advance Revelation with repeated valuations affecting more reduction in SBDB Diff JEEM 2009  in a lab experiment used a Decision Rule to clarify outcomes of the second vote and removed SBDB Diff. In a field CVM we combine Advance Revelation with the Decision Rule and test removal SBDB Diff.

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Design of the Study Contingent Valuation Method Frame: WTP for Renewable Energy sources Sequential valuations with 2 baselines: –Renewable Energies instead of Hydropower –Renewable Energies instead of Fossil Fuels. 3 Split Samples Treatments: (1100 interviews) –Sample 1: Control treatment –Sample 2: Advance Revelation (AR) treatment –Sample 3: Advance Revelation + Decision Rule treatment (DR)

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Design of the Study and Hypotheses RE instead of HE (1st Valuation)RE instead of TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBSBDB Diff SBDBSBDB Diff Control AR AR+DR > > SBDB Diff

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Design of the Study and Hypotheses RE instead of HE (1st Valuation)RE instead of TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBSBDB Diff SBDBSBDB Diff Control AR AR+DR > > SBDB Diff

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Objective Re test LDCV (reduction in the SBDB Diff ) and SE ? We test if Advance Revelation Learning in isolation and combine with LDCV reduces SBDB Diff and SE? We test if the Decision Rule (JEEM 2009) further attenuates SBDB Diff and SE?

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World QUESTIONNAIRE SCENARIO Brief description of the current energy situation of Chile. Presentation and description of the hydropower projects in Chilean Patagonia (Patagonia, location of projects and impacts). Presentation and description of the renewable energy sources and its impacts. First Valuation task Description of the fossil fuel sources and its impacts. Presentation and description of the renewable energy sources and its impacts. Second Valuation task

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Advance Revelation on Valuation Sequence In producing the 15% extra electricity required in Chile we are looking at how much more you would be willing to pay for this renewables alternative over the two other types of energy. In what follows you will be asked how you would vote if a referendum was held to choose between renewable energy and each of the other alternatives.

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Advance Revelation on DB Institution Because the exact cost of the projects is not known today, we will ask you to vote on 2 different costs for each project. These costs represent the range into which the actual cost should fall. In what follows, you will vote for or against each alternative. You are asked how you would vote if the good could be provided at one of the two cost. This is followed directly by a second vote on how you would vote if the good could be provided at the second of the two costs.

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Decision Rule Now imagine that the cost to you was $________ (Higher/Lower price) and the outcome of this second vote replaces that of the first vote, so that if a majority vote “Yes” in favour of the proposal the renewable energy projects are developed and if a majority vote “No” the Patagonian dams project will go ahead. We will not ask you to vote again at another cost on this proposal. Would you vote Yes or No?

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – Estimations First Valuation RE instead of HYDROPOWER – HE (1 st Valuation) CONTROLARAR + DR SBDBSBDBSBDB Constant 2.37 (7.39) 2.35 (11.94) 2.52 (8.00) 2.36 (11.15) 2.47 (8.30) 2.34 (11.54) Bid (-3.33) (-12.12) (-4.49) (-12.44) (-5.16) (-13.08) WTP SE-wtp # Obs

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – Estimations Second Valuation RE instead of THERMOELECTRIC – TE (2 nd Valuation) CONTROLARAR + DR SBDBSBDBSBDB Constant 2.16 (8.48) 2.31 (12.37) 1.92 (7.69) 1.79 (9.84) 1.88 (7.71) 1.96 (10.63) Bid (-6.33) (-14.97) (-7.46) (-15.31) (-6.83) (-15.06) WTP SE-wtp # Obs

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results – SBDB Diff HE (1st Valuation)TE (2nd Valuation) TREATMENTSBDBDIFSBDBDIF Control (901.53) (191.04) (413.59) (217.31) AR (474.09) (161.44) (264.62) (226.79) AR+DR (350.79) (160.77) (318.32) (239.77) 23.83

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World

Conclusions JEEM 2008 and 2009 looks only at significant SBDB Diff. This study also considers effect of AR, DR and LDCV on SE like the American literature. As in JEEM 2008, the SE on first SB valuation is several magnitude greater than other SE. AR appears to be almost same reduction in SBDB DIFF and SE as a repeated valuation in LDCV. Adding DR to AR greatly reduces the SBDB DIFF in the first valuation but even more in the second valuation and it takes out the strategically behavior.

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Thanks for your attention Questions Contact Details: Claudia Aravena

Gibson Institute for Land, Food and Environment Institute for a Sustainable World Results - Responses Hydropower (1 st Valuation)Thermoelectric (2 nd Valuation) TREATMENTYYYNNYNNYYYNNYNN Control (340 responses) 200 (58.82%) 77 (22.65%) 27 (7.94%) 36 (10.59%) 157 (46.18%) 80 (23.53%) 57 (16.76%) 46 (13.53%) AR (323 responses) 182 (56.35%) 76 (23.53%) 33 (10.22%) 32 (9.91%) 120 (37.15%) 66 (20.43%) 60 (18.58%) 77 (23.84%) AR+DR (340 responses) 196 (57.65%) 67 (19.71%) 38 (11.12%) 36 (10.59%) 147 (43.24%) 62 (18.24%) 69 (20.29%) 62 (18.24%)