Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 226-235

  Collins, Jill P ^a   Vossler, Christian A ^b  

^a ECKERD COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Laboratory experiment; Mixed logit; Status quo bias; Voting theory; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENT; LABORATORY EXPERIMENT; MIXED LOGIT; STATUS QUO BIAS; VOTING THEORY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EXPERIMENTS;

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; INCENTIVE; LOGIT ANALYSIS; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 68049095243     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2009.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abramson P.R., Aldrich J.H., Diamond M., Diskin A., Levine R., and Scotto T.J. Strategic abandonment or sincerely second best? The 1999 Israeli prime ministerial election. J. Polit. 66 (2004) 706-728
2. Abramson P.R., Aldrich J.H., Paolino P., and Rhode D.W. Sophisticated voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 86 (1992) 55-69
3. Adamowicz W.L., Boxall P., Williams M., and Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80 (1998) 64-75
4. Alpízar F., Carlsson F., and Martinsson P. Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ. Issues 8 (2001) 83-110
5. Alvarez R.M., and Nagler J. A new approach for modeling strategic voting in multiparty elections. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 30 (2000) 57-75
6. Bennett J., and Adamowicz V. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. In: Bennett J., and Blamey R. (Eds). The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation (2001), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
7. Bennett J., and Blamey R. The strengths and weaknesses of environmental choice modelling. In: Bennett J., and Blamey R. (Eds). The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation (2001), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
8. Burton A.C., Carson K.S., Chilton S.M., and Hutchinson W.G. Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda. Environ. Resour. Econ. 38 (2007) 513-525
9. Cameron T.A. A new paradigm for valuing non-market hoods using teferendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 15 (1988) 355-379
10. K.S. Carson, S.M. Chilton, W.G. Hutchinson, Are choice experiment surveys incentive compatible or systematically biased? An economic experiment on repeated choice formats, Working Paper, Department of Economics and Geography, US Air Force Academy, CO, 2008.
11. Carson R., and Groves T. Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37 (2007) 181-210
12. R. Carson, T. Groves, J. List, M. Machina, 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, 2004.
13. Engelmann D., and Strobel M. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 94 (2004) 857-869
14. Farquharson R. Theory of Voting (1969), Yale University Press, New Haven
15. Fernandez R., and Rodrik D. Resistance to reform: status quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty. Am. Econ. Rev. 81 (1991) 1146-1155
16. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis. fifth ed (2003), Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
17. Hanley N., Mourato S., and Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J. Econ. Surv. 15 (2001) 435-462
18. Hanley N., Wright R.E., and Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environ. Resour. Econ. 11 (1998) 413-428
19. Hey J.D., and Lee J. Do subjects separate (or are they sophisticated)?. Exp. Econ. 8 (2005) 233-265
20. Holmes T., and Adamowicz W. Attribute-based methods. In: Boyle K.J., and Champ P.A. (Eds). A Primer on Non-Market Valuation (2003), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
21. Johannson-Stenman O., and Martinsson P. Honestly, why are you driving a BMW?. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 60 (2006) 129-146
22. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., and Thaler R.H. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 5 (1991) 193-206
23. Landry C.E., and List J.A. Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence from the field. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 89 (2007) 420-432
24. McKelvey R.D., and Ordeshook P.C. A general theory of the calculus of voting. In: Herndon J.F., and Bernd J.L. (Eds). Mathematical Applications in Political Science (1972), University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
25. Merolla J.L., and Stephenson L.B. Strategic voting in Canada: a cross time analysis. Electoral Stud. 26 (2007) 235-246
26. Polomé P. Experimental evidence on deliberate misrepresentation in referendum contingent valuation. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 52 (2003) 387-401
27. Samuelson W., and Zeckhauser R.J. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertainty 1 (1988) 7-59
28. Scarpa R., Thiene M., and Train K. Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address the confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the alps. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 90 (2008) 994-1010
29. Smith V.L., and Walker J.M. Monetary rewards and decision cost in experimental economics. Econ. Inquiry 31 (1993) 245-261
30. Taylor L.O., McKee M., Laury S.K., and Cummings R.G. Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Econ. Lett. 71 (2001) 61-65
31. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
32. Train K., and Weeks M. Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In: Alberini A., and Scarpa R. (Eds). Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (2003), Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
33. C.A. Vossler, M.F. Evans, Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality, Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Tennessee, 2008.
34. Vossler C.A., and McKee M. Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms. Environ. Resour. Econ. 35 (2006) 137-168
35. White H. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica 50 (1982) 1-25