Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 193-205

  List, John A ^a,b   Shogren, Jason F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001604716     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-2681(98)00084-5     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bishop, R., Heberlien, T., 1979. Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 926-930.
2. Blackburn M., Harrison G., Rutström E.E. Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 76:1994;1084-1088.
3. Bohm P. Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Review. 3:1972;111-130.
4. Bohm P. Revealing demand for an actual public good. Journal of Public Economics. 24:1984;131-151.
5. Carson R., Flores N., Martin K., Wright J. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics. 72:1996;80-99.
6. Coursey D., Hovis J., Schulze W. The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 102:1987;679-690.
7. Cragg J. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica. 39:1971;829-843.
8. Cummings, R., Brookshire, D., Schulze, W., 1986. Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.
9. Cummings R., Ganderton P., McGuckin T. Substitution effects in contingent valuation estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 76:1994;205-214.
10. Cummings, R., Harrison, G., Rutström, E.E., 1995. Homegrown value and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible? American Economic Review 85, 260-622.
11. Diamond, P., Hausman, J., 1994. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 45-64.
12. Dickie M., Fisher A., Gerking S. Market transactions and hypothetical demand data: A comparative study. Journal of American Statistical Association. 82:1987;69-75.
13. Fox, J., Shogren, J., Hayes, D., Kliebenstein, J., 1998, CVM-X: Calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets, American Journal of Agricultural Economics (in press).
14. Grether D. Individual behavior and market performance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 76:1994;1079-1083.
15. Harrison, G., Beekman, R., Brown, L., Clements, L., Mc Daniel, T., Odom, S. and Williams, M., 1997. Environmental damage assessment with hypothetical surveys: The calibration approach, In: Bowman, M., Brannlund, R., Kriström, B. (Eds.), Topics in Environmental Economics, Kluwer, Amsterdam, forthcoming.
16. Hoehn J., Loomis J. Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 25:1993;56-75.
17. Kagel's, J., 1995. Auctions: A survey of experimental research, In: Kagel, J., Roth, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 501-585.
18. Krishna, V., Rosenthal, R., 1995. Simultaneous Auction with Synergies, Photocopy, Boston University.
19. McAffee P., McMillan J. Analyzing the airwaves auction. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 10:1996;159-176.
20. McMillian J. Selling spectrum rights. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8:1994;145-162.
21. Melton B., Huffman W., Shogren J., Fox J. Consumer preferences for fresh food item with multiple quality attributes: Evidence from an experimental auction of pork chops. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 78:1996;916-923.
22. Milgrom P., Weber R. A theory of auction and competitive bidding. Econometrica. 50:1982;1089-1122.
23. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1994. Natural resource damage assessment: Proposed rules, Federal Register, 4 May, 59, pp. 23098-23111.
24. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996, Natural resource damage assessments: Final rules, Federal Register, 5 January, 61, 439 pp.
25. Neill H., Cummings R., Ganderton P., Harrison G., McGukin T. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics. 70:1994;145-154.
26. Plott, C., 1996. Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes, In: Arrow, K. et al., Eds., The Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior, Macmillan (London) and St. Martin Press (New York).
27. Randall, A., 1997. Calibration of CV responses: Discussion, In: BJornstad, D., Kahn, J. (Eds.), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources, Edgar Elgar, London, pp. 198-207.
28. Seip K., Strand J. Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2:1992;91-106.
29. Shogren J. The impact of self-protection and self-insurance on individual response to risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 3:1990;191-204.
30. Shogren J., Shin S., Hayes D., Kliebenstein J. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. American Economic Review. 84:1994;255-270.
31. Vickrey W. Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance. 16:1961;8-37.