Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 197-220

  Taylor, Laura O ^a   Morrison, Mark D ^b   Boyle, Kevin J ^c  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Incentive compatibility; Non market valuation

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; RESOURCE VALUATION; SURVEYS;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; EXPLICIT CONNECTIONS; INCENTIVE COMPATIBILITY; INCENTIVE COMPATIBLE; NON-MARKET VALUATION; STATED PREFERENCE SURVEYS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECONOMICS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXCHANGE RATE; INCENTIVE; MARKET SYSTEM; MONETARY POLICY; PRICE DYNAMICS; PUBLIC GOODS; SURVEY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84755160720     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9371-8     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Arrow K, Solow P, Portney P, Leaner E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601-4614.
2. Bennett, J, Blamey, R (eds) (2001) The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar.
3. Bosworth R, Cameron TA, DeShazo JR (2009) Demand for environmental policies to improve health: evaluating community-level policy scenarios. J Environ Econ Manage 57: 293-308.
4. Boyle Kevin J (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, Netherlands.
5. Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (2000) Fair division of indivisible items between two people with identical preferences: Envy-freeness, Pareto-optimality, and equity. Soc Choice Welfare 17(2): 247-267.
6. Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 46(2): 353-361.
7. Bunch DS (1991) Estimability in the multinomial probit model. Transp Res Part B: Methodolo 25(1): 1-12.
8. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal Willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manage 41: 179-192.
9. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resourc Econ 37(1): 181-210.
10. Cherry T, Frykblom P, Shogren J (2002) Hardnose the dictator. Am Econ Rev 92(4): 1218-1221.
11. Cherry TL, Kroll S, Shogren JF (2005) The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab. J Econ Behav Organ 57: 357-365.
12. Clark J (2002) House money effects in public good experiments. Exp Econ 5: 223-231.
13. Cornes R, Sandler T (1996) The theory of externalities, public goods, and club goods, second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 83(3): 649-665.
15. Davis DD, Holt CA (1993) Experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
16. Gibbard A (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41(4): 587-601.
17. Greene W (2003) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
18. Harrison Glenn W, List John A (2004) Field experiments. J Econ Litera XLII(4): 1009-1055.
19. Harrison GW, Rutstrom EE (2005) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In: Plott C, Smith V (eds) Handbook in experimental economics results. Elsevier Science, New York.
20. Hole AR (2007) A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ 16: 827-840.
21. Holmes T, Adamowicz V (2003) Attribute based methods. In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, Netherlands.
22. Hoehn JP, Randall A (1987) A satisfactory benefit-cost indicator from contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 14(3): 226-247.
23. Johnston RJ (2006) Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum. J Environ Econ Manage 52(1): 469-481.
24. Kroll S, Cherry TL, Shogren J (2007) The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on contributions in best-shot public good games. Exp Econ 10: 411-428.
25. Krosnick JA (1999) Survey research. Annu Rev Psychol 50(1): 537-567.
26. Lawrence F (2003) Credit card usage of college students: evidence from Louisiana State University. LSU AgCenter Publication #RIS-107, available at www. lsuagcenter. com.
27. Ledyard JO (1995) Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel J, Roth A (eds) Handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
28. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environ Resourc Econ 20(3): 241-254.
29. List J, Singha P, Taylor M (2006) Using choice experiments to value nonmarket goods and services: evidence from field experiments. In: Advances in economic analysis & policy, vol 6: No. 2, Article 2. http://www. bepress. com/bejeap/advances/vol6/iss2/art2.
30. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
31. Lusk JL, Schroeder TC (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am J Agric Econ 86(2): 467-482.
32. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp 105-142.
33. Moulin H (1988) Axioms of cooperative decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
34. Mozumder P, Berrens RP (2007) Investigating hypothetical bias: induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism with uncertainty. Appl Econ Lett 14(10-12): 705-709.
35. Murphy J, Allen GP, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resourc Econ 30: 313-325.
36. Poe GL, Giraud K, Loomis J (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agric Econ 87(2): 353-365.
37. Rutstrom EE, Williams MB (2000) Entitlements and fairness: an experimental study of distributive preferences. J Econ Behav Organ 43(1): 75-89.
38. Satterthwaite MA (1975) Strategy-proofness and arrow's conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. J Econ Theory 10: 187-217.
39. Sloane NJA (2004) A library of othogonal arrays, http://www. research. att. com/~njas/oadir/, last accessed April 19, 2010.
40. Taylor LO, McKee M, Laury SK, Cummings RG (2001) Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Econ Lett 71(1): 61-65.
41. Walker M (1981) A simple incentive compatible scheme for attaining lindahl allocations. Econometrica 49(1): 65-71.