An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 472-489

  Burton, Anthony C ^a   Carson, Katherine S ^b   Chilton, Susan M ^c   Hutchinson, W George ^d  

^a Econ and Oper Research Division   (United Kingdom)

^b UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY   (United States)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Double referenda; Experimental economics; Induced preferences

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; ECONOMICS; SURVEYS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGY; TESTING METHOD;

EID: 0242661907     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00022-6     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. A. Agresti, Categorical Data Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1990.
2. A. Alberini, Efficiency vs. bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: bivariate and interval-data models, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 29 (2) (1995) 169-180, doi:10.1006/jeem.1995.1039.
3. K.J. Arrow, R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, H. Schuman, Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Federal Register 58 (10) (1993) 4602-4614.
4. A.C. Burton, K.S. Carson, S.M. Chilton, W.G. Hutchinson, Consequentiality and the incentive compatibility of one-shot referenda, Newcastle Discussion Papers in Economics No. 2001-01.
5. T.A. Cameron, J. Quiggin, Estimation using contingent valuation data from a 'dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 27 (3) (1994) 218-234, doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1035.
6. R. Carson, T. Groves, M. Machina, Incentive and informational properties of preference questions, Plenary Address to the European Association of Resource and Environmental Economists, Oslo, Norway, June 1999.
7. R.G. Cummings, S. Elliott, G.W. Harrison, J. Murphy, Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?, J. Polit. Econ. 105 (3) (1997) 609-621.
8. D.D. Davis, C.A. Holt, Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993.
9. J.R. DeShazo, Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 43 (3) (2002) 360-385, doi:10.1006/jeem.2000.1185.
10. M. Hanemann, J. Loomis, B. Kanninen, Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 73 (4) (1991) 1255-1263.
11. J.A. Herriges, J.F. Shogren, Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 30 (1) (1996) 112-131, doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0008.
12. D. McFadden, G.K. Leonard, Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis, in: J. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.
13. L.O. Taylor, M. McKee, S.K. Laury, R.G. Cummings, Induced value tests of the referendum voting mechanism, Econ. Let. 71 (1) (2001) 61-65.