This study employed the double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation technique along with factor analysis to estimate visitors' willingness to pay (WTP) for the Yanchep Caves Recovery Project (YCRP). Two payment vehicles were used to elicit WTP: park entry fee and cave entry fee. The main contribution of this paper is the joint estimation of the two payment vehicles using the multivariate probit model by allowing the error terms of the two models to be correlated. Emphasis was given to testing whether parameters of the two bid levels should be constrained and to overcoming anchoring bias. The estimated median WTP for cave and park entry fees when accounting for anchoring effect and constrained parameters was AU$10.20 and AU$16.40, respectively. Without correcting for the anchoring effect, the WTP probability is overestimated for lower bids and underestimated for higher bids.
AlberiniA. (1995), ‘Efficiency vs. bias of willingness to pay estimates: Bivariate and interval-data models’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 29, No 2, pp 169–180.
2.
ArañaJ.E.LeónC.J. (2007), ‘Repeated dichotomous choice formats for elicitation of willingness to pay: Simultaneous estimation and anchoring effect’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol 36, No 4, pp 475–497.
3.
ArrowK.SolowR.PortneyP.LeamerE.RadnerR.SchumanH. (1993), ‘Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Contingent Valuation’, Federal Register, Vol 58, pp 4602–4614.
4.
BatemanI.J.CarsonR.T.DayB.HanemannM.HanleyN.HettT.Jones-LeeM.LoomesG.MouratoS.OzdemirogluE.PearceD.W.SugdenR.SwansonJ. (2002), Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Department for Transport, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
5.
CameronT.A.QuigginJ. (1994), ‘Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 27, No 3, pp 218–234.
6.
CarsonR.T.GrovesT. (2007), ‘Incentive and informational properties of preference questions’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol 37, No 1, pp 181–210.
7.
CoultonJ.C. (1999), ‘Optimal cultural heritage allocation: a model and contingent valuation study’, MSc thesis, Environmental and Resource Economics Program, September 1999, University College London, London.
FroendR.H.LoomesR.C.HorwitzP.BertuchM.StoreyA.W.BamfordM. (2004), Study of Ecological Water Requirements on the Gnangara and Jandakot Mounds under Section 46 of the EP Act. Task 2: Determination of Ecological Water Requirements, (No. CEM 2004-10), Centre for Ecosystem Management, ECU, Joondalup, WA.
HanemannM.KanninenB. (1999), ‘The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data’, in BatemanI.WillisK., eds, Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 302–441.
12.
HanemannM.LoomisJ.KanninenB. (1991), ‘Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 73, No 4, pp 1255–1263.
13.
HensherD.A.JohnsonL.W. (1979), Applied Discrete Choice Modelling, Halsted, New York.
14.
HerrigesJ.A.ShogrenJ.F. (1996), ‘Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 30, No 1, pp 112–131.
15.
HillR.GriffithsW.JudgeG. (2001), Undergraduate Econometrics (2nd edn), John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York.
16.
KimhiA. (1999), ‘On the tradeoff between computational simplicity and asymptotic properties in multivariate probit’, Computational Economics, Vol 13, No 1, pp 93–101.
17.
LewisD.MamingiN. (2003), ‘Valuing Barbados' Harrison's Cave: A contingent valuation approach’, Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, Vol 28, No 2, pp 30–56.
18.
LinardakisM.DellaportasP. (2003), ‘Assessment of Athens's metro passenger behaviour via a multiranked probit model’, Applied Statistics, Vol 52, No 2, pp 185–200.
19.
MaddalaG.S. (1983), Limited-dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20.
MelicharJ.ŠčasnýM. (2004), Introduction to Non-Market Valuation Methods and Critical Review of their Application in the Czech Republic, Institute of Economics Studies, Prague (http://ies.fsv.cuni.cz/default/file/download/id/4646, accessed 30 January 2007).
21.
MitchellR.C.CarsonR.T. (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, DC.
22.
MorimotoS. (2005), ‘A choice experiment study to plan tourism expansion in Luang Prabang, Laos’, in LanzaA.MarkandyaA.PigliaruF., eds, The Economics of Tourism and Sustainable Development, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 288–307.
23.
NavrudS.ReadyR.C. (2002), Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artefacts, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
24.
ParkT.LoomisJ. (1996), ‘Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol 7, No 2, pp 149–162.
25.
RiddelM.LoomisJ. (1998), ‘Joint estimation of multiple CVM scenarios under a double bounded questioning format’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol 12, No 1, pp 77–98.
26.
TrainK. (1986), Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
27.
YesertenerC. (2006), Assessment of the Artificial Maintenance of Groundwater in Yanchep Caves, Department of Water, Government of Western Australia, Hydrogeological Record Series, Report HG13, Western Australia.
