Development of a bias ratio to examine factors influencing hypothetical bias

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 95, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 39-48

  Mjelde, James W ^a   Jin, Yanhong H ^b   Lee, Choong Ki ^c   Kim, Tae Kyun ^d   Han, Sang Yoel ^d  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Kyung Hee University   (South Korea)

^d Kyungpook National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Bias ratio; Contingent valuation; Hypothetical; Multivariate logit

Indexed keywords

BIAS RATIO; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; ECONOMIC VARIABLES; HYPOTHETICAL; HYPOTHETICAL BIAS; INDEPENDENT VARIABLES; MULTIVARIATE LOGIT; REAL SITUATION; SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTOR; SOCIO-ECONOMICS;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DATA INTERPRETATION; DATA SET; EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; LOGIT ANALYSIS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS;

ARTICLE; EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; SOCIOECONOMICS;

EID: 80055046862     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ajzen I., Brown T.C., Carvajal F. Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: the case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2004, 30:1108-1121.
2. Ajzen I., Peterson G.L. Contingent value measurement: the price of everything and the value of nothing?. Amenity Resource Valuation Integrating Economics with Other Disciplines 1988, Venture Publishing, Inc, State College, PA. G.L. Peterson, B.L. Driver, R. Gregory (Eds.).
3. Blackburn M., Harrison G.W., Ruström E.E. Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76:1084-1088.
4. Bohm P. Estimating the demand for public goods. European Economic Review 1972, 3:111-130.
5. Boryeong Mud Festival Origins 2010, (accessed 31.03.10.). http://www.mudfestival.or.kr/english/festival/festival1.php.
6. Camacho-Cuena E., Garcia-Gallego A., Georgantzis N., Sabater-Grande G. An experimental validation of hypothetical WTP for a recyclable product. Environmental and Resource Economics 2004, 27:313-335.
7. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagekvist C.J. Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economic Letters 2005, 89:147-152.
8. Champ P., Bishop R., Brown T., McCollum D. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33:151-163.
9. Campbell D.T. Social attitudes and other acquired behavioral dispositions. Psychology: A Study of a Science 1963, vol. 6:94-172. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. S. Koch (Ed.).
10. Chien Y.L., Huang C.J., Shaw D. A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental and Economics and Management 2005, 50:362-377.
11. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review 1999, 89:649-665.
12. Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., Schulze, W.D., Coursey, D.L., 1984. Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
13. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D. The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education 1978, 9:10-19.
14. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones R.E. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 2000, 56:425-442.
15. Ehmke M.D., Lusk J.L., List J.A. Is hypothetical bias a universal phenomenon? A multinational investigation. Land Economics 2008, 84:489-500.
16. Fox J.A., Shogren J.F., Hayes D.J., Kliebenstein J.B. CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80:455-465.
17. Greene W.H. Econometrics Analysis 1997, Simon & Schuster Co, Upper Saddle River, N.J. third ed.
18. Han S.Y., Lee C.K. Estimating the value of preserving the Manchurian black bear using the contingent valuation method. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2008, 23:458-465.
19. Hausman J., McFadden D. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 1984, 52:1219-1240.
20. Hoehn J.P., Swanson C.S. Toward a satisfactory model of contingent valuation behavior in a policy valuation context. Amenity Resource Valuation Integrating Economics with Other Disciplines 1988, Venture Publishing, Inc, State College, PA. G.L. Peterson, B.L. Driver, R. Gregory (Eds.).
21. Hoyos D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1594-1603.
22. Johnston R.J. Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 52:469-481.
23. Kaiser F.G., Byrka K., Hartig T. Reviving Campbell's paradigm for attitude research. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2010, 14:351-367.
24. Korea National Tourism Organization Master Plan for Development of Peace Tourism Belt in the DMZ and Its Vicinity 2004, Government Printers, Seoul.
25. LaPiere R.T. Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces 1934, 13:230-237.
26. Lee, J.S., Lee, C.K., Choi, Y.J. Examining the role of emotional and functional values in festival evaluation. Journal of Travel Research, forthcoming. doi:10.1177/0047287510385465.
27. Lee C.K., Mjelde J.W. Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: the case of the Korean DMZ. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:511-520.
28. List J.A. Do explicit warming eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sports cards. American Economic Review 2001, 91:1498-1507.
29. List J.A., Gallet C.G. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? evidence from a meta-analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20:241-254.
30. Little J., Berrens R. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin 2004, 3:1-13.
31. Lusk J.L. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85:840-856.
32. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
33. Morrison M., Brown T.C. Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 44:307-326.
34. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:313-325.
35. Musumba M., Jin Y.H., Mjelde J.W. Factors Influencing International Graduate Students Career Preferences 2009, Education Economics URL:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09645290903102902.
36. Nape S., Frykblom P., Harrisaon G.W., Lesley J.C. Hypothetical bias and willingness-to-accept. Economic Letters 2003, 78:423-430.
37. Organizing Committee of Boryeong Mud Festival, 2009. Final Report of 12th Boryeong Mud Festival, Boryeong City.
38. Oehlert G.W. A note on the delta method. The American Statistician 1992, 46:27-29.
39. Peterson G.L., Driver B.L., Gregory R. Introduction. Amenity Resource Valuation Integrating Economics with Other Disciplines 1988, Venture Publishing, Inc, State College, PA. G.L. Peterson, B.L. Driver, R. Gregory (Eds.).
40. Samnaliev M., Stevens T.H., More T. A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 2006, 576:507-519.
41. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulations 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42. Venkatachalam L. The Contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2004, 24:89-124.
43. Vossler C.A., Kerkliet J., Polasky S., Gainutdinova O. Externality validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon. Journal of Economic and Behavior Organization 2003, 31:145-159.
44. Vuletic D., Benko M., Dubravac R., Krajer S., Novotny V., Indir K., Balenovic I. Review of nonmarket forest goods and service evaluation methods. Pereiodicum Biologorum 2009, 111:515-521.
45. Westing A.H. A transfrontier reserve for peace and nature on the Korean peninsula. International Environmental Affairs 1998, 10:8-17.
46. Whitehead J.C., Cherry T.L. Willingness to pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resource and Energy Economics 2007, 29:247-261.
47. Whitehead J.C., Pattanayak S.K., Van Houtven G.L., Gelso B.R. Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. Journal of Economic Surveys 2008, 22:872-908.
48. Wu X.M., Perloff J. GMM estimation of maximum entropy density with interval data. Journal of Econometrics 2007, 138:532-546.