A Test of Cheap Talk in Different Hypothetical Contexts: The Case of Air Pollution

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 111-130

  Ami, Dominique ^a   Aprahamian, Frédéric ^b   Chanel, Olivier ^c   Luchini, Stéphane ^c  

^a AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULON   (France)

^c CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

Air pollution; Cheap talk; Contingent valuation; Field experiment; Protest response; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

AIR POLLUTION; ECONOMICS; POLLUTION; RESOURCE VALUATION;

CHEAP TALK; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; FIELD EXPERIMENT; PROTEST RESPONSE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

POLLUTION CONTROL;

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; FIELD SURVEY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 80051664321     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-011-9464-z     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2003) Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. Am J Agr Econ 85(2): 492-502.
2. Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2006a) Cheap talk reconsidered: new evidence from CVM. J Econ Behav Org 60: 562-578.
3. Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2006b) Curbside recycling: waste resource or waste of resources?. J Pol Anal Manage 25(4): 855-874.
4. Aadland D, Caplan AJ, Phillips O (2007) A Bayesian examination of information and uncertainty in contingent valuation. J Risk Uncert 35: 149-178.
5. Ajzen I, Brown TC, Carvajal F (2004) Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: the case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30: 1108-1121.
6. Alberini A, Cropper M, Krupnick A, Simon N (2004) Does the value of a statistical life vary with age and health status? Evidence from the US and Canada. J Environ Econ Manage 48: 769-792.
7. Algan Y, Cahuc P (2007) La société de défiance. Comment le modèle social français s'autodétruit. Editions de la Rue d'Ulm, collection CEPREMAP.
8. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johnsson-Stenman O (2008) Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J Pub Econ 92(4-5): 1047-1060.
9. Aprahamian F, Chanel O, Luchini S (2007) Modeling starting point bias and unobserved heterogeneity in contingent valuation surveys: an application to air pollution. Am J Agr Econ 89(2): 533-547.
10. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Reg 58(10): 4016-4064.
11. Ash M, Murphy J, Stevens T (2004) Hypothetical Bias in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies. University of Massachusetts Resource Economics Working Paper No. 2004-9.
12. Bishop R, Woodward RT (1995) Valuation of environmental amenities under certainty. In: Bromley DW (eds) Handbook of environmental economics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 543-567.
13. Blumenschein K, Blomquist GC, Johannesson M, Horn N, Freeman P (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ J 118: 114-137.
14. Bonnichsen O, Ladenburg J (2010) Using an ex-ante entreaty to reduce protest zero bias in stated preference surveys - a health economic case. J Choice Model 2(2): 200-215.
15. Broberg T (2010) Income treatment effects in contingent valuation: the case of the Swedish predator policy. Env Res Econ 46: 1-17.
16. Brown TC, Azjen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 46: 353-361.
17. Brummett RG, Nayga EM Jr, Wu X (2007) On the use of cheap talk in new product valuation. Econ Bull 2(1): 1-9.
18. Bulte E, Gerking S, List J, de Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manage 49(2): 330-342.
19. Cameron TA, Englin J (1997) Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. J Env Econ Manag 33(3): 296-313.
20. Cameron C, Trivedi P (2005) Microeconometrics, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
21. Caplan A, Aadland D, Macharia A (2010) Estimating hypothetical bias in economically emergent Africa: a generic public good experiment. Agr Res Econ Rev 39(2): 344-358.
22. Carlberg J, Froehlich E, Ward C (2007) Willingness-to-pay for branded fresh beef products in Canada report submitted to Canfax Research Services, March.
23. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2005) Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett 89: 147-152.
24. Carlsson F, Martinsson B (2006) Do experience and cheap talk influence willingness to pay in an open-ended contingent valuation survey? Working Papers in Economics no. 190, Göteborg University.
25. Carlsson F, Martinsson P, Akay A (2009) The effect of power outages and cheap talk on willingness to pay to reduce outages, Working Paper IZA 4307, July.
26. Chanel O, Cleary S, Luchini S (2006) Does public opinion influence WTP? Evidence from the field. App Econ Lett 13: 821-824.
27. Cummings RG, Harrison GW, Osborne LL (1995) Can the bias of contingent valuation surveys be reduced? Evidence from the Laboratory. Economics Working Paper B-95-03, College of Business Administration, University of South Carolina.
28. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1998) Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys?. Land Econ 74(2): 203-215.
29. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649-666.
30. Davidson R, MacKinnon J (1993) Estimation and inference in econometrics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
31. Desaigues B, Ami D, Hutchison M, Rabl A, Chilton S, Metcalf H, Hunt A, Ortiz R, Navrud S, Kaderjak P, Szanta R, Seested Nielsen J, Jeanrenaud C, Pellegrini S, Braun Kohlova M, Scasny M, Maca V, Urban J, Stoeckel M-E, Bartczak A, Markiewicz O, Riera P, Farreras V (2007) Final report on the monetary valuation of mortality and morbidity risks from air pollution, Deliverable D6. 7, NEEDS RS1b, February, European Union.
32. Dziegielewska D, Mendelsohn R (2007) Does "No" mean "No"? A protest methodology. Env Res Econ 38: 71-87.
33. Ehmke M, Lusk JL, List J (2008) Is hypothetical bias a universal phenomenon? A multinational investigation. Land Econ 84(3): 489-500.
34. Flachaire E, Hollard G, Luchini S (2007) Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation framework. Rech Econ Louv 73(4): 369-385.
35. Harrison G, Rutström E (2008) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In: Plott C, Smith V (eds) Handbook of experimental economics results, vol 1. Elsevier Press, New York, pp 752-767.
36. Hausman JA (1993) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment, contribution to economic analysis, vol 220. North-Holland: JA Hausman, New York.
37. Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1): 153-162.
38. Herriges J, Kling C, Liu C-C, Tobias J (2010) What are the consequences of consequentiality?. J Env Econ Manag 59: 67-81.
39. Horowitz J, McConnell K (2003) Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect. J Eco Behav Org 51(4): 537-545.
40. Jacobsen J, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation?. Env Res Econ 43: 137-160.
41. Jacquemet N, James A, Luchini S, Shogren J (2011) Social psychology and environmental economics: a new look at ex-ante corrections of biased preference evaluation. Env Res Econ 48(3): 413-433.
42. Jacquemet N, Joule R-V, Luchini S, Shogren J (2009) Earned wealth, engaged bidders? Evidence from a second-price auction. Econ Lett 105(1): 36-38.
43. Kennedy PE (1981) Estimation with correctly interpreted dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. Am Econ Rev 71: 801.
44. Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, O'Brien B, Goeree R, Heintzelman M (2002) Age, health and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation study of Ontario residents. J Risk Uncert 24: 161-186.
45. Künzli N, Kaiser R, Medina S, Studnicka M, Chanel O, Herry M, Horak F, Puybonnieux-Texier V, Quenel P, Schneider J, Seethaler R, Vergnaud JC, Sommer H (2000) Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution: a European assessment. Lancet 356: 795-801.
46. Ladenburg J, Olsen S, (2009) Augmenting short cheap talk scripts with a repeated opt-out reminder in Choice Experiment surveys, 17th EAERE conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
47. Landry C, List J (2007) Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence form the field. Am J Agric Econ 89(2): 420-429.
48. List J (2001) Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auction experiments. Am Econ Rev 91(5): 1498-1507.
49. List J, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Env Res Econ 20: 241-254.
50. List J, Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Kerkvliet J (2004) Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. Am Econ Rev 94(3): 741-752.
51. List J, Sinha P, Taylor M (2006) Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services. Adv Econ Anal Pol 6(2): 1-37.
52. Little J, Berrens R (2004) Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ Bull 3(6): 1-13.
53. Lusk JL (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85(4): 840-856.
54. McFadden D, Leonard G (1993) Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In: Hausman J (eds) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North-Holland, New York, pp 165-215.
55. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2008) Do protest responses to contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?. Env Res Econ 39: 433-446.
56. Mitani Y, Flores NE (2009) Demand revelation, hypothetical bias, and threshold public goods provision. Env Res Econ 44: 231-243.
57. Mitchell R, Carson R (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future., Washington D. C.
58. Morrison M, Brown T (2009) Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Env Res Econ 44(3): 307-326.
59. Mourato S, Atkinson G, Morse-Jones S, Lanz B, Provins A (2008) When to take "no" for an answer? Using entreaties to reduce protests in stated preference studies, 16th EAERE conference, Gothenburg, Sweden.
60. Murphy J, Allen G, Stevens T, Weatherhead D (2005a) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Env Res Econ 30: 313-325.
61. Murphy J, Stevens T, Weatherhead D (2005b) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?. Env Res Econ 30(3): 327-343.
62. Murphy J, Stevens T, Yadav L (2010) A comparison of induced value and home-grown value experiments to test for hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Env Res Econ (forthcoming).
63. Poe GL, Clark JE, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Env Res Econ 23: 105-131.
64. Samnaliev M, Stevens T, More T (2006) A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 57(3): 507-519.
65. Schkade D, Payne W (1994) How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Env Econ Manag 26: 88-109.
66. Sinden JA (1988) Empirical tests of hypothetical bias in consumers' surplus surveys. Aust J Agric Econ 32(2/3): 98-112.
67. Strazzera E, Genius M, Scarpa R, Hutchinson G (2003) The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites. Env Res Econ 25: 461-476.
68. Viscusi W, Magat WA, Forrest A (1988) Altruistic and private valuations of risk reduction. J Pol Anal Manag 7: 227-245.
69. Whitehead J, Cherry TL (2007) Willingness to pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Res Energ Econ 29: 247-261.