Economic valuation of a contemporary art museum: Correction of hypothetical bias using a certainty question

Journal of Cultural Economics

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 185-199

  Bedate, Ana María ^a   Herrero, Luis César ^a   Sanz, José Ángel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALLADOLID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Cultural economics; Hypothetical bias; Valuation of public goods; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349322831     PISSN: 08852545     EISSN: 15736997     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10824-009-9098-y     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Aadland, D., & Caplan, A. J. (2003). Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 492-502.
2. Aadland, D., & Caplan, A. J. (2006). Cheap talk reconsidered: New evidence from CVM. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 60(4), 562-578.
3. Alberini, A., Boyle, K. J., & Welsh, M. P. (2003). Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45(1), 40-62.
4. An, M. Y. & Ayala, R. A. (1996). A simple algorithm for nonparametric estimation of distribution functions with arbitrarily grouped data. Working Paper 9602, Department of Economics, Duke University, Durham.
5. Azjen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carbajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 30(9), 1108-1121.
6. Báez, A. (2006). Aplicación de Técnicas de Valoración Contingente para la Evaluación del Patrimonio Histórico Urbano. El caso del Conjunto Histórico de la Ciudad de Valdivia (Chile), Tesis Doctoral, Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.
7. Berrens, R. P., Jenkins-Smith, H., Bohara, A. K., & Silva, C. L. (2002). Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: Fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(1), 144-168.
8. Bille Hansen, T. (1997). The willingness-to-pay for the royal theatre in Copenhagen. Journal of Cultural Economics, 21(1), 1-28.
9. Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G., Johannensson, M., Horn, N., & Freeman, P. (2008). Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment. The Economic Journal, 118(1), 114-137.
10. Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G. C., Liljas, B., & O'Conor, R. M. (1998). Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal, 65(1), 169-177.
11. Bravi, M., Scarpa, R., & Sirchia, G. (2002). Measuring WTP for cultural services in Italian Museums: A discrete choice contingent valuation analysis. In S. Navrud & R. C. Ready (Eds.), Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts (pp. 184-199). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
12. Brown, T. C., Ajzen, I., & Hrubes, D. (2003). Further test of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent donations to a public good? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46(2), 353-361.
13. Brown, T. C., Champ, P. A., Bishop, R. C., & McCollum, D. W. (1996). Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics, 72(2), 152-166.
14. Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S. & Ruud, P. A. (1994). Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from Exxon Valdez. Discussion paper 94-18, Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
15. Champ, P. A., & Bishop, R. C. (2001). Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: An empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19(4), 383-402.
16. Champ, P. A., Bishop, R. C., Brown, T. C., & McCollum, D. W. (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33(2), 151-162.
17. Cuccia, T., & Signorello, G. (2002). A contingent valuation study of willingness to pay for heritage visits: Case study of noto. In I. Rizzo & R. Towse (Eds.), The economics of heritage: A study in the political economy of culture in Sicily (pp. 147-163). Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar.
18. Cummings, R. G., Elliott, S., Harrison, G. W., & Murphy, J. (1997). Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? Journal of Political Economy, 105(3), 609-621.
19. Cummings, R. G., Harrison, G. W., & Rustrom, E. E. (1995). Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? American Economic Review, 85(1), 260-266.
20. Cummings, R. G., & Taylor, L. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89(3), 649-665.
21. del Saz, S., & Montagud, J. (2005). Valuing cultural heritage: The social benefits of restoring and old Arab tower. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 6(1), 69-77.
22. EFTEC (2005). Valuation of the historic environment, Report prepared for English Heritage, London: The Heritage Lottery Fund, DCMS and the Department of Transport.
23. Ethier, R., Poe, G. L., Schulze, W. D., & Clark, J. (2000). A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Economics, 76(1), 54-67.
24. Harrison, G. W. (2006). Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34(1), 125-162.
25. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In C. R. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
26. Johannesson, M., Liljas, B., & Johansson, P. O. (1998). An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Applied Economics, 30(5), 643-647.
27. Li, C. Z., & Mattsson, L. (1995). Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(2), 256-269.
28. List, J. A. (2001). Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. American Economic Review, 91, 1498-1507.
29. List, J. A., & Gallet, C. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20(3), 241-254.
30. List, J. A., & Shogren, J. F. (1998). Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 37(2), 193-205.
31. Loomis, J. B., Brown, T., Lucero, B., & Peterson, G. (1996). Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: Results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual WTP. Land Economics, 72(4), 450-461.
32. Loomis, J. B., & Ekstrand, E. R. (1998). Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness-to-pay: The case of the Mexican spotted Owl. Ecological Economics, 29(1), 29-41.
33. Loomis, J. B., González-Caban, A., & Gregory, R. (1994). Substitutes and budget constraints in contingent valuation. Land Economics, 70(4), 499-506.
34. Mansfield, C. (1998). A consistent method for calibrating contingent value survey data. Southern Economic Journal, 64(3), 665-681.
35. Mourato, S. & Mazzanti, M. (2002). Economic valuation of cultural heritage: Evidence and prospects. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage, (pp. 51-76). Los Angeles: Research Report, The Getty Conservation Institute.
36. Murphy, J. J., Allen, P. G., Stevens, T. H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30(3), 313-325.
37. National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration. (1994). Proposed rules for valuing environmental damages. Federal Register, 59(5), 1062-1191.
38. Navrud, S., & Ready, R. C. (Eds.). (2002). Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
39. Neil, H. R. (1995). The contest of the substitutes in CVM studies: Some empirical observations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(3), 393-397.
40. Neil, H. R., Cummings, R. G., Ganderton, P. T., Harrison, G. W., & McGuckin, T. (1994). Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics, 70(2), 145-154.
41. Noonan, D. S. (2002). Contingent valuation studies in the arts and culture: An annotated bibliography. Working Paper, Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago, Chicago.
42. Noonan, D. S. (2003). Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3-4), 159-176.
43. Pearce, D. S., Mourato, S., Navrud, S., & Ready, R. C. (2002). Review of existing studies, their policy use and future research needs. In S. Navrud & R. C. Ready (Eds.), Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts (pp. 257-271). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
44. Poe, G. L., Clark, J. E., Rondeau, D., & Schulze, W. D. (2002). Provision point mechanisms and field validity test of contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23(1), 105-131.
45. Ready, R. C., Whitehead, J. C., & Blomquist, G. C. (1995). Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(2), 181-196.
46. Samnaliev, M., Stevens, T. H., & More, T. (2006). A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 57(3), 507-519.
47. Santagata, W., & Signorello, G. (2000). Contingent valuation of a cultural public good and policy design: The case of "Napoli Musei Aperti". Journal of Cultural Economics, 24(3), 181-204.
48. Sanz, J. A. (2004). Valoración económica del patrimonio cultural. Gijón: Trea S. L.
49. Sanz, J. A., Herrero, L. C., & Bedate, A. M. (2003). Contingent valuation and semiparametric methods: A case study of the National Museum of Sculpture in Valladolid, Spain. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3-4), 241-257.
50. Schulze, W. D., D'Arge, R. C., & Brookshire, D. S. (1981). Valuing environmental commodities: Some recent experiments. Land Economics, 57(2), 151-172.
51. Snowball, J. D. (2008). Measuring the value of culture: Methods and examples in cultural economics. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
52. Thompson, E., Berger, M., Blomquist, G., & Allen, S. (2002). Valuing the arts: A contingent valuation approach. Journal of Cultural Economics, 26(2), 87-113.
53. Thompson, B. J., Throsby, C. D. & Withers, G. A. (1983). Measuring community benefits from the arts. Research Paper no 261, School of Economic and Financial Studies, Macquarie University, Sidney.
54. Throsby, C. D., & Withers, G. A. (1983). Measuring the demand for the arts as a public good: Theory and empirical results. In W. S. Hendon & J. L. Shanahan (Eds.), Economics of cultural decisions (pp. 177-191). Cambridge: Abt Books.
55. Vossler, C. A., Ethier, R., Poe, G. L., & Welsh, M. P. (2003). Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: Results from a field validity test. Southern Economic Journal, 69(4), 886-902.
56. Vossler, C. A., & Kerkvliet, J. (2003). A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45(3), 631-649.
57. Wang, H. (1997). Treatment of 'Don't-Know' responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32(2), 219-232.
58. Welsh, M. P., & Poe, G. L. (1998). Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: Comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36(2), 170-185.
59. Whitehead, J. C., Blomquist, G. C., Ready, R. C., & Huang, J. (1998). Construct validity of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 11(1), 107-116.