A note on the measurement of bias in stated willingness to pay for public goods

Kyklos

Volumn 58, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 145-152

  Schläpfer, Felix ^a   Deacon, Robert T ^b   Hanley, Nick ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MEASUREMENT METHOD; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 15844369387     PISSN: 00235962     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0023-5962.2005.00281.x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Arrow, Kenneth J., Robert Solow, Paul Portney, Edward E. Leamer, Roy Radner and Howard Schuman (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Federal Register. 58: 4602-4614.
2. Barlow, Robin (1970). Efficiency aspects of local school expenditures, Journal of Political Economy. 78: 1028-1040.
3. Bergstrom, Theodore C. and Robert P. Goodman (1973). Private demand for public goods, American Economic Review. 63: 280-296.
4. Bishop, Richard and Thomas Heberlein (1979). Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures of value biased?, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 61: 926-930.
5. Borcherding, Thomas E. and Robert T. Deacon (1972). The demand for the services of non-federal governments, American Economic Review. 62: 891-901.
6. Carson, Richard T., Nicholas E. Flores, Kerry M. Martin and Jennifer L. Wright (1996). Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods, Land Economics. 72: 80-99.
7. Cummings, Ronald, Steven Elliott, Glenn W. Harrison and James Murphy (1997). Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?, Journal of Political Economy. 105: 609-21.
8. Fox, John A., Jason F. Shogren, Dermot J. Hayes, James B. Kliebenstein (1998). CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 80: 455-465.
9. Frykblom, Peter (1997). Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 34: 275-287.
10. Inman, Robert P. (1978). Testing political economy's 'as if' proposition: Is the median income voter really decisive?, Public Choice. 33: 45-64.
11. Kopp, Raymond J., Werner W. Pommerehne and Norbert Schwarz (1997). Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods. Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12. Krutilla, John V. (1967). Conservation reconsidered, American Economic Review. 54: 777-786.
13. Mitchell, Robert C. and Richard T. Carson (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Continent Valuation Method. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
14. Pommerehne, Werner W. (1987) Präferenzen für öffentliche Güter. Ansätze zu ihrer Erfassung. Tübingen: J.C.B Mohr.
15. Schläpfer, Felix, Anna Roschewitz and Nick Hanley (2004). Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of individual contingent valuation survey response and voting behavior, Ecological Economics: 51: 1-16.
16. Shapiro, Perry and Robert T. Deacon (1996). Estimating the demand for public goods: Comments and extensions, in: David J. Biornstad and James R. Kahn (eds.), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources. Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar: 244-262.
17. Vossler, Christian A. and Joe Kerkvliet (2003). A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public good, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 45: 631-649.