Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 219-225

  Carson, Katherine Silz ^a   Chilton, Susan M ^b   Hutchinson, W George ^c  

^a UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY   (United States)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c Gibson Institute for Land   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consequential double referendum; Contingent valuation; Demand revelation

Indexed keywords

TRAJECTORIES;

CONSEQUENTIAL DOUBLE REFERENDUM; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DEMAND REVELATION; EXPERIMENTAL LABORATORIES; FIELD SURVEYS; WILLINGNESS TO PAYS;

ECONOMICS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DEMAND ANALYSIS; LABORATORY METHOD; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 60449095286     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2008.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Alberini A. Efficiency vs. bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: bivariate and interval-data models. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 29 (1995) 169-180
2. Alberini A., Kanninen B., and Carson R.T. Modelling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Econ. 73 (1997) 309-3224
3. Bateman I.J., Burgess D., Hutchinson W.G., and Matthews D.I. Contrasting NOAA guidelines with learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): preference learning versus coherent arbitrariness. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 55 (2008) 127-141
4. A.C. Burton, K.S. Carson, S.M. Chilton, W.G. Hutchinson, Why do people non-demand reveal in hypothetical double referenda for public goods? Appl. Econ., forthcoming.
5. Cameron T.A., and Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 27 (1994) 218-234
6. Carson K.S., Chilton S.M., and Hutchinson W.G. Consequentiality and demand revelation in double referenda. In: Cherry T.L., Kroll S., and Shogren J.F. (Eds). Environmental Economics, Experimental Methods (2008), Routledge Press, Oxford 407-423
7. Carson R.T., and Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37 (2007) 181-210
8. Gibbard A. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41 (1973) 587-601
9. Hanemann M., Loomis J., and Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73 (1991) 1255-1263
10. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 30 (1996) 112-131
11. Kagel J.H., and Roth A.E. The Handbook of Experimental Economics (1995), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
12. Levitt S.D., and List J.A. What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences tell us about the real world?. J. Econ. Perspect. 21 (2007) 153-174
13. McFadden D., and Leonard G.K. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In: Hausman J. (Ed). Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment (1993), North-Holland, Amsterdam
14. Satterthwaite M.A. Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: existence and correspondence theorems of voting procedures and social welfare functions. J. Econ. Theory 10 (1975) 187-217