Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 353-361

  Brown, Thomas C ^a   Ajzen, Icek ^b   Hrubes, Daniel ^c  

^a ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^c Division of Natural Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Hypothetical bias; Public goods; Referenda

Indexed keywords

ESTIMATION; RESEARCH;

PAYMENT AMOUNTS;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 0041419376     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00041-4     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. K. Blumenschein, M. Johannesson, G.C. Blomquist, B. Liljas, R.M. O'Connor, Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation, Southern Econom. J. 65 (1998) 169-177.
2. R.R. Boyce, T.C. Brown, G.D. McClelland, G.L. Peterson, W.D. Schulze, Experimental evidence of existence value in payment and compensation contexts, in: K.J. Boyle, T. Heekin (Eds.), Western Regional Research Project W-133: Benefits and Costs in Natural Resources Planning, University of Maine, Orono, ME, 1989.
3. T.C. Brown, P.A. Champ, R.C. Bishop, D.W. McCollum, Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?, Land Econom. 72 (1996) 152-166.
4. 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 (1998) 484-487.
5. R.G. Cummings, S. Elliott, G.W. Harrison, J. Murphy, Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?, J. Polit. Econom. 105 (1997) 609-621.
6. R.G. Cummings, G.W. Harrison, E.E. Rutstrom, Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?, Amer. Econom. Rev. 85 (1995) 260-266.
7. R.G. Cummings, L.O. Taylor, Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method, Amer. Econom. Rev. 89 (1999) 649-665.
8. M. Dickie, A. Fisher, S. Gerking, Market transactions and hypothetical demand: a comparative study, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 82 (1987) 69-75.
9. C.L. Eavey, G.J. Miller, Bureaucratic agenda control: imposition or bargaining, Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 78 (1984) 719-733.
10. J.P. Hoehn, A. Randall, A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econom. Management 14 (1987) 226-247.
11. M.J. Kealy, J.F. Dovidio, M.L. Rockel, Accuracy in valuation is a matter of degree, Land Econom. 64 (1988) 158-171.
12. J.A. List, Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards, Amer. Econom. Rev. 91 (2001) 1498-1507.
13. J. Loomis, T. Brown, B. Lucero, G. Peterson, Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual WTP, Land Econom. 72 (1996) 450-461.
14. J. Loomis, A. Gonzalez-Caban, R. Gregory, Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates?, Land Econom. 70 (1994) 499-506.
15. H. Neill, R. Cummings, P. Ganderton, G. Harrison, T. McGuckin, Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments, Land Econom. 70 (1994) 145-154.
16. T. Romer, H. Rosenthal, Bureaucrats versus voters: on the political economy of resource allocation by direct democracy, Quart. J. Econom. 93 (1979) 563-587.