Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 12-20

  Aprahamian, Frédéric ^a   Chanel, Olivier ^a   Luchini, Stéphane ^a  

^a Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique   (France)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Heterogeneous anchoring; Incentive incompatibility; Starting point bias; Yea saying

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; RESOURCE VALUATION; SURVEYS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; HETEROGENEOUS ANCHORING; INCENTIVE INCOMPATIBILITY; STARTING POINT BIAS;

ENERGY MANAGEMENT;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; HETEROGENEOUS MEDIUM; INCENTIVE; SHIFT-SHARE ANALYSIS;

EID: 37349071461     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2007.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Aadland D., and Caplan A.J. Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions: comment. Land Economics 80 (2004) 312-315
2. Alberini A., Kanninen B., and Carson R.T. Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Economics 73 (1997) 309-324
3. Aprahamian F., Olivier C., and Stéphane L. Modeling starting point bias as unobserved heterogeneity in contingent valuation surveys: an application to air pollution. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 2 (2007) 535-550
4. Carson, R.T., 1985. Three essays on contingent valuation. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
5. Carson, R.T., Theodore Groves, M.J. Machina, 2000. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego.
6. Chien Y.-L., Huang C., and Shaw D. A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50 (2005) 362-377
7. Davis R.K. The value of big game hunting in a private forest. Transactions of the 29th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (1964), Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC
8. DeShazo J.R. Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (2002) 360-385
9. Flachaire E., and Hollard G. Controlling starting-point bias in double bounded contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 82 (2006) 103-111
10. Flachaire Emmanuel, Hollard Guillaume, Luchini Stéphane, in press. Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation framework. Louvain Economic Review.
11. Hanemann M.W. Some issues in continuous and discrete response contingent valuation studies. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and resource Economics 14 (1985) 5-13
12. Hanemann M.W., and Kanninen B.J. Statistical analysis of discrete response CV data. Valuing Environmental Preferences-Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EC and Developing Countries (1999), Ian Bateman and Ken G. Willis, Oxford
13. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 112-131
14. Randall A., Ives B., and Eastman C. Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1 (1974) 132-149
15. Whitehead J.C. Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Economics 78 (2002) 285-297
16. Whitehead J.C. Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions: reply. Land Economics 80 2 (2004) 316-319