A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 631-649

  Vossler, Christian A ^a   Kerkvliet, Joe ^b  

^a Cornell University ^*  (United States)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Criterion validity; Survey nonresponse; Voting behavior

Indexed keywords

DATA PROCESSING; FINANCE; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; STATISTICAL METHODS; SURVEYING; TAXATION;

VALUATION METHODS;

RIVERS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; VOTING BEHAVIOR; WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CORVALLIS; OREGON; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0038331975     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00017-7     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. K.J. Arrow, R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, H. Schuman, Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Fed. Regist. 58 (1993) 4601-4614.
2. R.P. Berrens, R.M. Adams, Applying contingent valuation in the design of fee hunting programs: pheasant hunting in Oregon revisited, Human Dimensions Wildlife 3 (3) (1998) 11-25.
3. R.P. Berrens, A.K. Bohara, J. Kerkvliet, A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Amer. J. Agr. Econom. 79 (1) (1997) 252-266.
4. R.C. Bishop, P.A. Champ, D.J. Mullarkey, Contingent valuation, in: D.W. Bromley (Ed.), The Handbook of Environmental Economics, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, 1995.
5. R.C. Bishop, T.A. Heberlein, Measuring values of extramarket goods: are indirect measures biased?, Amer. J. Agr. Econom. 61 (5) (1979) 926-930.
6. D.S. Brookshire, M. Thayer, W.D. Schulze, R. d'Arge, Valuing public goods: a comparison of the survey and hedonic approaches, Amer. Econom. Rev. 72 (1) (1982) 165-177.
7. T.A. Cameron, M.D. James, Efficient estimation methods for use with "closed-ended" contingent valuation survey data, Rev. Econom. Statist. 69 (2) (1987) 269-276.
8. T.A. Cameron, G.L. Poe, R.G. Ethier, W.D. Schulze, Alternative value-elicitation methods: are revealed and stated preferences the same?, J. Environ. Econom. Management 44 (2002) 391-425, doi:10.1006/jeem.2001.1210.
9. T.A. Cameron, W.D. Shaw, S.R. Ragland, Nonresponse bias in mail survey data: salience vs. endogenous survey complexity, in: J. Herriges, C. Kling (Eds.), Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cambridge, 1999.
10. R.T. Carson, N.E. Flores, K. Martin, J.L. Wright, Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods, Land Econom. 72 (1) (1996) 80-99.
11. R.T. Carson, T. Groves, M.J. Machina, Incentive and information properties of preference questions, Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, 2000.
12. R.T. Carson, W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, J.A. Krosnick, R.C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.A. Ruud, V.K. Smith, M. Conaway, K. Martin, Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA panel's no-vote recommendation, Rev. Econom. Statist. 80 (3) (1998) 484-487.
13. R.T. Carson, W.M. Hanemann, R.C. Mitchell, The Use of Simulated Political Markets to Value Public Goods, Economics Department, University of California, San Diego, 1986.
14. P.A. Champ, R.C. Bishop, T.C. Brown, D.W. McCollum, Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods, J. Environ. Econom. Management 33 (2) (1997) 151-162 doi:10.1006/jeem.1997.0988.
15. P.A. Champ, T.C. Brown, A comparison of contingent and actual voting behavior, Proceedings from W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, 10th Interim Report, 1997.
16. R.G. Cummings, S. Elliott, G.W. Harrison, J. Murphy, Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?, J. Polit. Econom. 105 (3) (1997) 609-621.
17. R.G. Cummings, G.W. Harrison, E. Rutström, Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: do dichotomous choice questions elicit real economic commitments?, Amer. Econom. Rev. 85 (1) (1995) 260-266.
18. M. Dickie, A. Fisher, S. Gerking, Market transactions and hypothetical demand data: a comparative study, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 82 (1) (1987) 69-75.
19. D.A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, Wiley, New York, 1978.
20. W.H. Greene, Econometric Analysis, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewod Cliffs, NJ, 1997.
21. T.C. Haab, J-C. Huang, J.C. Whitehead, Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? A comment, J. Polit. Econom. 107 (1) (1999) 186-196.
22. M.K. Haener, W.L. Adamowicz, Analysis of "don't know" responses to referendum contingent valuation questions, Agr. Res. Econom. Rev. 27 (2) (1998) 218-230.
23. M.J. Kealy, M. Montgomery, J.F. Dovidio, Reliability and predictive validity or contingent values: does the nature of the good matter?, J. Environ. Econom. Management 19 (1990) 244-263.
24. J.L. Knetsch, R.K. Davis, Comparisons of methods for recreation evaluation, in: A.V. Kneese, S.C. Smith (Eds.), Water Research, Resources for the Future Inc, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966, pp. 125-142.
25. I. Krinsky, A.L. Robb, On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities, Rev. Econom. Statist. 68 (4) (1986) 715-719.
26. J. List, J.F. Shogren, Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment, J. Econom. Behav. and Organiz. 37 (2) (1998) 193-206.
27. J. Loomis, M. Creel, T. Park, Comparing benefit estimates from travel cost and contingent valuation using confidence intervals for Hicksian welfare measures, Appl. Econom. 23 (11) (1991) 1725-1731.
28. D. Magelby, Opinion formation and opinion change in ballot proposition campaigns, in: M. Margolis, G. Mauser (Eds.), Manipulating Public Opinion, Brooks/Cole Publishers, Pacific Grove, CA, 1989.
29. D. McFadden, F. Reid, Aggregate travel demand forecasting from disaggregated behavioral models, Transportation Res. Rec. 534 (1975) 24-37.
30. G.L. Poe, J.E. Clark, D. Rondeau, W.D. Schulze, Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation, Environ. Res. Econom 23 (1) (2002) 105-131.
31. P.R. Portney, The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care, J. Econom. Perspect. 8 (4) (1994) 3-17.
32. Riverfront Commission, Riverfront Commemorative Park and Riverfront District Master Plan, 1997.
33. L. Shabman, K. Stephenson, Searching for the correct benefit estimate: empirical evidence for an alternative perspective, Land Econom. 72 (4) (1996) 433-449.
34. L.O. Taylor, Incentive compatible referenda and the valuation of environmental goods, Agr. Res. Econom. Rev. 27 (2) (1998) 132-139.
35. C.A. Vossler, J. Kerkvliet, S. Polasky, O. Gainutdinova, Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon, J. Econom. Behav. and Organiz., forthcoming.
36. H. Wang, Treatment of "don't-know" responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model, J. Environ. Econom. Management 32 (2) (1997) 219-232 doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0965.
37. A.K. Bohara, J. Kerkvliet, R.P. Berrens, Addressing negative willingness to pay in contingent valuation: a Monte Carlo simulation, Environ. Res. Econom. 20 (2001) 173-195.