Extrapolating experimental-auction results using a stated choice survey

European Review of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 345-363

  Alfnes, Frode ^a   Rickertsen, Kyrre ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Beef; Benefit transfer; Experimental auctions; Hypothetical bias, stated choice; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 35348910375     PISSN: 01651587     EISSN: 14643618     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/erae/jbm024     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Alfnes, F. (2004). Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: an application of the mixed logit model. European Review of Agricultural Economics 31: 19-37.
2. Alfnes, F., Guttormsen, A. G., Steine, G. and Kolstad, K. (2006). Consumers' willingness to pay for the color of salmon: a choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88: 1050-1061.
3. Alfnes, F. and Rickertsen, K. (2003). European consumers' willingness to pay for U.S. beef in experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 369-405.
4. Alfnes, F. and Rickertsen, K. (2005). European consumers' willingness to pay for U.S. beef in experimental auction markets: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 259-261.
5. Alfnes, F., Rickertsen, K. and Ueland, ø. Consumer attitudes toward low stake risk in food markets. Forthcoming in Applied Economics.
6. Blackburn, M., Harrison, G. and Rutström, E. E. ( 1994). Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 1084-1088.
7. Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T. and James, S. (2001). Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Economics 28: 479-498.
8. Cameron, T., Poe, G., Either, R. and Schulze, W. (2002). Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: are revealed and stated preferences the same? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 391-421.
9. Carlsson, F. and Martinsson P. (2001). Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41: 179-192.
10. Crocker, T. D. and Shogren, J. F. (1991). Preference learning and contingent valuation methods. In F. Dietz, F. Van der Ploeg and J. Van der Straaten (eds), Environmental Policy and the Economy. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishers, 77-93.
11. Enneking, U. (2004). Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label. European Review of Agricultural Economics 31: 205-223.
12. Fox, J. A., Shogren, J. F., Hayes, D. J. and Kliebenstein, J. B. (1998). CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 455-465.
13. Gabor, A. and Granger, C. W. J. (1966). Price as an indicator of quality: report on an inquiry. Economica 32: 43-70.
14. Greene, W. H. (2002). Nlogit Version 3.0 Reference Guide. New York: Econometric Software, Inc.
15. Hanley, N., Colombo, S., Tinch, D., Black, A. and Aftab, A. (2006). Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework. Directive: are benefits transferable? European Review of Agricultural Economics 33: 391-413.
16. Hayes, D. J., Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. Y. and Kliebenstein, J. B. (1995). Valuing food safety in experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77: 40-53.
17. Hofler, R. A. and List J. A. (2004). Valuation on the frontier: calibrating actual and hypothetical statements of value. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86: 213-221.
18. Hu, W., Hünnemeyer, A., Veeman, M., Adamowicz, W. and Srivastava, L. (2004). Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food. European Review of Agricultural Economics 31: 389-408.
19. Johansson-Stenman, O. and Svedsäter, H. (2004). Cheap talk does not always come cheap: hypothetical bias in choice experiments. Unpublished paper. Department of Economics, Göteborg University.
20. Juric, B. and Worsley, A. (1998). Consumers' attitude towards imported food products. Food Quality and Preferences 9: 431-441.
21. Kuhfeld, W. F. (2005). Marketing Research Methods is SAS: Experimental Design, Choice Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
22. List, J. A. (2001). Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportcards. American Economic Review 91: 1498-1507.
23. List, J. A. and Gallet, G. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual, and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20:241-254.
24. List, J. A., Margolis, M. and Shogren, J. F. (1998). Hypothetical-actual bid calibration of a multigood auction. Economics Letters 60: 263-268.
25. List, J. A. and Shogren, J. F. (1998). Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37: 193-205.
26. List, J. A. and Shogren, J. F. (2002). Calibration, of willingness to accept. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 219-233.
27. List, J. A., Sinha, P. and Taylor, M. H. (2006). Using choice experiments to value nonmarket goods and services: evidence from the field. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 6(2), Article 2.
28. Lusk, J. L. (2003). Effect of cheap talk, on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 840-856.
29. Lusk, J. L., Daniel, M. S., Mark, D. R. and Lusk, C. L. (2001). Alternative calibration and auction institutions for predicting consumer willingness to pay for nongenetically modified corn chips. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26: 40-57.
30. Lusk, J. L., House, L. O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S. R., Moore, M., Morrow, B. and Traill, W. B. (2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics 31: 179-204.
31. Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J. and Fox, J. A. (2003). Demand tor beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: a comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 16-29.
32. Lusk, J. L. and Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86: 467-482.
33. Lusk, J. L. and Schroeder, T. C. (2006). Auctions bids and shopping choices. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 6(1), Article 4.
34. Mansfield, C. (1998). A consistent method for calibrating contingent value survey data. Southern Economic Journal 64: 665-681.
35. Murphy, J. J., Allen P. G., Stevens, T. H. and Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics. 30: 313-325.
36. Navrud, S. and Ready, R. (2007). A review of methods for value transfer. In S. Navrud and R. Ready (eds), Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods, Series: The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, Volume 9. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
37. Noussair, C., Robin, S. and Ruffieux, B. (2002). Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Economics Letters 75: 47-53.
38. Noussair, C., Robin, S. and Ruffieux, B. (2004). Do consumers really refuse to buy genetically modified food? Economic Journal 114: 102-120.
39. Quagrainie, K. K., Unterschultz, J. and Veeman, M. (1998). Effects of product origin and selected demographics on consumer choice of red meats. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 46: 201-219.
40. Ready, R. and Navrud, S. (2005) Benefit transfer: the quick, the dirty, and the ugly? Choices 20: 195-199.
41. Rigby, D. and Burton, M. (2005). Preference heterogeneity and GM food in the UK, European Review of Agricultural Economics 32: 269-288.
42. Rousu, M. (2005). European consumers' willingness to pay for U.S. beef in experimental auction markets: comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 256-258.
43. Rousu, M., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J. F. and Tegene, A. (2004). Estimating the public value of conflicting information: the case of genetically modified foods. Land Economics 80: 125-135.
44. Shogren, J. F. (2005). Experimental methods and valuation. In K.G. Maler and J. Vincent, (eds), Handbook of Environmental Economics, Volume 2. Amsterdam: Norm-Holland, 969-1027.
45. Unterschultz, J., Quagrainie, K. K., Veeman, M. and Kim, R. B. ( 1998). South Korean hotel meat buyers' perceptions of Australian, Canadian and US beef. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 46: 53-68.
46. USDA (2006) Country of origin, labelling, http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/. Accessed 11. August 2006.
47. Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance 16: 8-37.
48. Wessells, C. R., Johnston, R. J. and Donath, H. (1999). Assessing consumers' preferences for ecolabeled seafood: the influence of species, certifier, and household attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 1084-1089.