An experimental validation of hypothetical WTP for a recyclable product

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 313-335

  Camacho Cuena, Eva ^a   García Gallego, Aurora ^a   Georgantzís, Nikolaos ^a   Sabater Grande, Gerardo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT JAUME I   (Spain)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Laboratory experiments; Product design; Product recyclability; Vertical differentiation; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

WASTE UTILIZATION; WASTES;

RECYCLABLE PRODUCTS;

RECYCLING;

DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; RECYCLING; THEORETICAL STUDY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 12144288976     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:EARE.0000017657.08513.74     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bjornstad, D., R. Cummings and L. Osborne (1997), 'A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method', Environmental and Resource Economics 10, 207-221.
2. Blackburn, M., G. W. Harrison and E. E. Rutström (1994), 'Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys', American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 1084-1088.
3. Blumenschein, K., M. Johannesson, G. C. Blomquist, R. Liljas and R. M. O'Conor (1998), 'Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation', Southern Economic Journal 65, 169-177.
4. Brown, T. C., P. A. Champ, R. C. Bishop and D. W. McCollum (1996), 'Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good', Land Economics 72, 152-166.
5. Carson R. T., N. E. Flores, K. M. Martin and J. L. Wright (1996), 'Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for the Quasi-Public Goods', Land Economics 72, 80-99.
6. Carson, R. T. (1997), 'Contingent Valuation Surveys and Test of Insensitivity to Scope', in R. J. Kopp, W. W. Pommerehne and N. Schwarz, eds., Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7. Carson, R. T. (2000), 'Contingent Valuation: A User's Guide', Environmental Science & Technology 34, 1413-1418.
8. Champ, P. A., T. C. Brown and D. W. McCollum (1997), 'Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 151-162.
9. Cummings, R. G., G. W. Harrison and E. E. Rutström (1995), 'Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?', American Economic Review 85, 260-266.
10. Cummings, R. G., S. Elliot, G. W. Harrison and J. Murphy (1997), 'Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?', Journal of Political Economy 105, 609-621.
11. Cummings, R. G. and L. O. Taylor (1999), 'Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method', American Economic Review 89, 649-665.
12. Davis, D. D. and C. A. Holt (1994), Experimental Economics. Princenton: Princenton University Press.
13. Fox, J. A., J. F. Shogren, D. J. Hayes and J. B. Kliebenstein (1998), 'CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets', American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 455-465.
14. Hausman, J. A. (1993), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. North Holland: Amsterdam.
15. Jensen, P. R. (1995), 'Vaf Miljø-hvorfor og Hvordan', Samfundsøkonomen 8, 39-45.
16. Johannesson, M., B. Liljas and P. O. Johansson (1998), 'An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions', Applied Economics 30, 643-647.
17. Johannesson, M., G. C. Blomquist, K. Blumenschein, P. O. Johansson and B. Liljas (1999), 'Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses', Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 21-32.
18. List, J. A., M. Margolis and J. F. Shogren (1998), 'Hypothetical-Actual Bid Calibration of a Multigood Auction', Economics Letters 60, 263-268.
19. List, J. A. and J. F. Shogren (1998), 'Between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment', Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37, 193-205.
20. List, J. A. (2001), 'Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards', American Economic Review 91, 1498-1507.
21. List, J. A. and C. A. Gallet (2001), 'What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis', Environmental and Resource Economics 20, 241-254.
22. List, J. A. and J. F. Shogren (2002), 'Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43, 219-233.
23. Loomis, J., A. Gonzalez-Caban and R. Gregory (1994), 'Substitutes and Budget Constraints in Contingent Valuation', Land Economics 70, 499-506.
24. Mansfield, C. (1998), 'A Consistent Method for Calibrating Contingent Value Survey Data', Southern Economic Journal 64, 665-681.
25. Neill, H. R. (1995), 'The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 393-397.
26. Nyborg, K. (2000), 'Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: Interpretation and Aggregation of Environmental Values', Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 42, 305-322.
27. Shogren, J. F. and G. C. Durden (1991), 'The First 15 Years: Contributors and Contributions of the Journal Environmental Economics and Management: 1974-1988', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20, 205-209.
28. Shogren, J. F. (1993), 'Experimental Markets and Environmental Policy', Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 3, 117-129.
29. Smith, V. K. (2000), 'JEEM and Non-Market Valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39, 351-374.
30. Stewart, M. (1983), 'On Least Squares Estimation when the Dependent Variable is Grouped', Review of Economic Studies 50, 141-149.