Theoretical incentive properties of contingent valuation questions: Do they matter in the field?

Ecological Economics

Volumn 62, Issue 3-4, 2007, Pages 451-460

  Schläpfer, Felix ^a   Bräuer, Ingo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Beliefs; Contingent valuation; Incentives; Majority rule; Public goods; Stated preferences

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; INCENTIVE; PUBLIC GOODS; REFERENDUM; SURVEY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; GERMANY; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 34247600952     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Andreoni J. Why free ride? Strategies and learning in public goods experiments. Journal of Public Economics 37 3 (1988) 291-304
2. Andreoni J., and McGuire M.C. Identifying the free riders: a simple algorithm for determining who will contribute to a public good. Journal of Public Economics 51 3 (1993) 447-454
3. Arrow K.R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H., and Solow R. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register vol. 58 (10) (1993) 4601-4614
4. Baron J. Rationality and invanriance: Response to Schuman. In: Bjornstad D.J., and Kahn J.R. (Eds). The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources. Methodological Issues and Research Needs (1996), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K 145-163
5. Brown T.C., Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., and McCollum D.W. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?. Land Economics 72 2 (1998) 152-166
6. Burton A.C., Carson K.S., Chilton S.M., and Hutchinson W.G. An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies to second offers in double referenda. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 3 (2003) 472-489
7. Carson R.T., Hanemann W.M., Kopp R.J., Krosnick J.A., Mitchell R.C., and Presser S. Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA panel's no-vote recommendation. Review of Economics and Statistics 80 3 (1998) 484-487
8. Carson R.T., Groves T., and Machina M. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Working Paper (2000), Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, CA.
9. Champ P.A., Flores N.E., Brown T.C., and Chivers J. Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Economics 78 4 (2002) 591-604
10. Chilton S.M., and Hutchinson W.G. A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good. Journal of Economic Psychology 24 1 (2003) 65-75
11. Cummings R.G., Harrison G., and Rutström E.E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?. American Economic Review 85 1 (1995) 260-266
12. Cummings R., Elliott S., Harrison G.W., and Murphy J. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?. Journal of Political Economy 105 3 (1997) 609-621
13. Diamond P.A., and Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 4 (1994) 45-64
14. Fisher A.C. The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. In: Bjornstad D.J., and Kahn J.R. (Eds). The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources. Methodological Issues and Research Needs (1996), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK 19-37
15. Green D., Jacowitz K.E., Kahneman D., and McFadden D. Referendum contigent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20 2 (1998) 85-116
16. Greene W. LIMDEP Version 7.0. User's Manual (1998), Econometrics Software Inc, Plainview, NY
17. Hanemann W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 4 (1994) 19-43
18. Hidano N., Kato T., and Izumi K. Reciprocity, consequentiality and willingness-to-pay in contingent valuation: an experimental panel analysis on climate changes. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Budapest, Hungary (2005)
19. Hidano N., Kato T., and Aritomi M. Benefits of participating in contingent valuation mail surveys and their effects on respondent behavior: a panel analysis. Ecological Economics 52 1 (2005) 63-80
20. Hoehn J., and Randall A. A satisfactory benefit-cost indicator for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17 3 (1987) 226-247
21. Horowitz J.K., and McConnell K.E. A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 3 (2002) 426-447
22. Loomis J.B., Blair L.S., and Gonzalez-Caban A. Language-related differences in a contingent valuation study: English versus Spanish. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 4 (2002) 1091-1102
23. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (1989), John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
24. Pouta E. Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey. Journal of Economic Psychology 25 2 (2004) 229-242
25. Posovac S. Strategic overbidding in contingent valuation: Stated economic value of public goods varies according to consumers expectations of funding source. Journal of Economic Psychology 19 2 (1998) 205-214
26. Riera P. Incentive compatibility in stated preference valuation methods: some positive results. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Bilbao, Spain (2003)
27. Schkade D.A., and Payne J.W. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness-to-pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 1 (1994) 88-109
28. Schläpfer, F., Schmitt, M. Anchors, endorsements, and preferences: a field experiment. Resource and Energy Economics, in revision.
29. Smith V. An experimental comparison of three public good decision mechanisms. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 81 (1979) 198-215
30. Taylor L.O., McKee M., Laury S.K., and Cummings R.G. Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Economics Letters 71 1 (2001) 61-65