Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: Evidence from the field

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 420-429

  Landry, Craig E ^a,b   List, John A ^a,b  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Hypothetical bias; Referendum; Stated preference

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL MARKET; CONTINGENT VALUATION; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 34547408487     PISSN: 00029092     EISSN: 14678276     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01017.x     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Aadland, D., and A.J. Caplan. 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2): 492-502.
2. Ariely, D., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2003. "Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves without Stable Preferences." Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 73-105.
3. Arrow, K., R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. "Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation." Federal Register 58: 4601-14.
4. 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: 207-21.
5. Blackburn, M., G.W. Harrison, and E.E. Rutström. 1994. "Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76 (5): 1084-8.
6. Bohm, P. 1972. "Estimating the Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment." European Economic Review 3: 111-30.
7. Brouwer, R., N. Powe, R.K. Turner, I.J. Bateman, and I.H. Langford. 1999. "Public Attitudes Toward Contingent Valuation and Public Consultation." Environmental Values 8: 325-47.
8. Bulte, E., S. Gerking, J.A. List, and A. de Zeeuw. 2005. "The Effect of Varying the Causes of Environmental Problems on Stated WTP Values: Evidence from a Field Study." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49(2): 330-42.
9. Carson, R., T. Groves, and M. Machina. 2000. "Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions." Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.
10. Carson, R., T. Groves, J.A. List, and M. Machina. 2002. "Probabilistic Influence and Supplemental Benefits: A Field Test of the Two Key Assumptions Underlying Stated Preferences." Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.
11. Champ, P.A., R.C. Bishop, 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(2): 151-62.
12. Cummings, R.G., G.W. Harrison, and L.O. Taylor. 1995. "Can the Bias of Contingent Valuation Surveys be Reduced?Evidence from the Laboratory." Working Paper, Department of Economics, Georgia State University.
13. Cummings, R.G., and L.O. Taylor. 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?" Land Economics 74(2): 203-15.
14. Cummings, R.G., and L.O. Taylor. 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method." American Economic Review 89(3): 649-65.
15. Diamond, P.A., and J.A. Hausman. 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 45-64.
16. Fox, J., J. Shogren, D. Hayes, and J. Kleibenstein. 2003. "CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets." Experiments in Environmental Economics 1: 445-55.
17. Haab, T.C., and K.E. McConnell. 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
18. Harrison, G.W., and J.A. List. 2004. "Field Experiments." Journal of Economic Literature. 42(2): 1009-1055.
19. Harrison, G.W., and E.E. Rutström. 2005. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods." In Handbook of Experimental Economics Results. C. Plott and V.L. Smith eds., New York: Elsevier Science.
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 (5): 1498-507.
21. List, J.A., and J. Shogren. 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43(2): 219-33.
22. Loomis, J., T. Brown, B. Lucero, and G. Peterson. 1996. "Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay." Land Economics 72(4): 450-61.
23. Loomis, J., A. Gonzalez-Caban, and R. Gregory. 1994. "Substitutes and Budget Constraints in Contingent Valuation." Land Economics 70(4): 499-506.
24. Lusk, J.L. 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Golden Rice." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4): 840-56.
25. Poe, G., J. Clark, and W. Schulze. 1997. "Can Hypothetical Questions Predict Actual Participation in Public Programs? A Field Validity Test Using a Provision Point Mechanism." Working paper, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Cornell University.
26. Powe, N.A., G.D. Garrod, and P.L. McMahon. 2005. "Mixing Methods within Stated Preference Environmental Valuation: Choice Experiments and Post-questionnaire Qualitative Analysis." Ecological Economics 52: 513-26.
27. Smith, V.K. and C. Mansfield. 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36(3): 209-24.
28. Taylor, L.O. 1998. "Incentive Compatible Referenda and the Valuation of Environmental Goods." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27: 132-9.