Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 513-525

  Burton, Anthony C ^a   Carson, Katherine S ^b   Chilton, Susan M ^c   Hutchinson, W George ^d  

^a Department of Health ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY   (United States)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Demand revelation; Experimental economics; Hypothetical bias; Hypothetical referenda; Non market valuation; Real referenda

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; HUMAN ENGINEERING;

DEMAND REVELATION; EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS; HYPOTHETICAL BIAS; HYPOTHETICAL REFERENDA; NON-MARKET VALUATION; REAL REFERENDA;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

BEHAVIOR; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; REFERENDUM; VALUATION;

EID: 36249016788     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-007-9095-6     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Arrow KJ, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4602-4614
2. Bjornstad D, Cummings R, Osborne L (1997). A learning design for reducing hypothetical bias in the contingent valuation method. Environ Resour Econ 10: 207-221
3. Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003). Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 46: 353-361
4. Cummings RG, Elliott S, Harrison GW, Murphy J (1997). Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?. J Polit Econ 105: 609-621
5. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89: 649-665
6. Fleiss JL (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley, New York
7. Fleiss JL, Cuzick J (1979). The reliability of dichotomous judgments: unequal numbers of judges per subject. Appl Psychol Meas 3: 537-542
8. Landis JR, Koch G (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159-174
9. List JA, Gallet CA (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environ Resour Econ 20: 241-254
10. Little J, Berrens R (2004). Explaining disparities between actually and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ Bull 3: 1-13
11. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30: 313-325
12. Smith VK (1999). Of birds and books: more on hypothetical referenda. J Polit Econ 107: 197-200
13. Taylor LO, McKee M, Laury SK, Cummings RG (2001). Induced value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Econ Lett 71: 61-65
14. Vossler CA, Kerkvliet J (2003). A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. J Environ Econ Manage 45: 631-649