Disentangling preferences and expectations in stated preference analysis with respondent uncertainty: The case of invasive species prevention

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 169-182

  Provencher, Bill ^a   Lewis, David J ^b   Anderson, Kathryn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Expectations; Respondent uncertainty; Species invasions; Stated preferences

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; EXPECTATIONS; RESPONDENT UNCERTAINTY; SPECIES INVASIONS; STATED PREFERENCES;

CONSERVATION; COST ACCOUNTING; LAKES; SURVEYS;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

AQUATIC PLANT; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HEDONIC ANALYSIS; INVASIVE SPECIES; SHORELINE; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WELFARE ECONOMICS;

CANADA; UNITED STATES;

MYRIOPHYLLUM SPICATUM;

EID: 84865196644     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2012.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J., Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 32(1):65-84.
2. Alberini A., Boyle K., Welsh M. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and esponse options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 45:40-62.
3. Berrens R.P., H.Jenkins-Smith A.K.B., Silva C.L. Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 44:144-168.
4. Blomquist G.C., Blumenschein K., Johannesson M. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 43:473-502.
5. Blomquist G.C., Whitehead J.C. Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 1998, 20:179-196.
6. Blumenschein K., Johannesson K., Blomquist G.C., Liljas R., O'Conor R.M. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal 1998, 65(1):169-177.
7. Boyle Kevin J. Contingent valuation in practice. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, T.C. Brown (Eds.).
8. Burghart D.R., Cameron T.A., Gerdes G.R. Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2007, 35:77-105.
9. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., Brown T.C., McCollum D.W. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33(2):151-162.
10. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental Resource Economics 2001, 19:383-402.
11. Champ, P.A., R.C. Bishop, and R. Moore. 2002. Approaches to mitigating hypothetical bias, Proceedings from 2005 Western Regional Research Project W-1133: Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Planning, Salt Lake City, UT.
12. Delavande A., Giné X., McKenzie D. Measuring subjective expectations in developing countries: a critical review and new evidence. Journal of Development Economics 2011, 94(2):151-163.
13. DeShazo, J.R. and T.A. Cameron. 2005. The effect of health status on willingness to pay for morbidity and mortality risk reductions, California Center for Population Research, On-Line Working Paper Series CCPR-050-05. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9431841p.
14. Evans M.F., Flores N.E., Boyle K.J. Multiple-bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions. Land Economics 2003, 79:549-560.
15. Hoehn J.P., Randall A. The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resource and Energy Economics 2002, 24:13-31.
16. Horsch E.J., Lewis D.J. The effects of aquatic invasive species on property values: evidence from a quasi-experiment. Land Economics 2009, 85(3):391-409.
17. Hurd M.D. Subjective probabilities in household surveys. Annual Review of Economics 2009, 1:543-562.
18. Kataria M., BatemanT.I., Christensen A., Dubgaard B., Hasler S., Hime J., Ladenburg G., Levin L., Martinsen, Nissen C. Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments - a nonmarket valuation study on the European water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management 2012, 94(1):25-33.
19. Kovacs K.F., Larson D.M. Identifying individual discount rates and valuing public open space with stated-preference models. Land Economics 2008, 84(2):209-224.
20. Krinsky I., Robb A. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1986, 86:715-719.
21. Li C.Z., Mattsson L. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 28:256-269.
22. Manski Charles F. Measuring expectations. Econometrica 2004, 72(5):1329-1376.
23. Moore R., Bishop R.C., Provencher B., Champ P.A. Accounting for respondent uncertainty to improve willingness-to-pay estimates. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2010, 58(3):381-401.
24. Ready R., Whitehead J., Blomquist G. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J. Environ. Econom. Management 1995, 29:181-196.
25. Rubin J., Helfand G., Loomis J. A benefit-cost analysis of the Northern Spotted Owl. Journal of Forestry 1991, 89(12):25-30.
26. Samnaliev M., Stevens T.H., More T. A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:507-519.
27. Smith C.S., Barko J.W. Ecology of eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 1990, 28(2):55-64.
28. Stumborg B.E., Baerenklau K.A., Bishop R.C. Nonpoint source pollution and present values: a contingent valuation study of Lake Mendota. Review of Agricultural Economics 2001, 23(1):120-132.
29. Tkac Jennifer The effects of information on willingness-to-pay values of endangered species. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80:1214-1220.
30. Vander Zanden M.J., Wilson K.A., Casselman J.M., Yan N.D. Species introductions and their impacts in North American shield lakes. Boreal ShieldWatersheds: Lake Trout Ecosystems in a Changing Environment 2004, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. J.M. Gunn, R.A. Ryder, R.J. Steedman (Eds.).
31. Wang H., Whittington D. Measuring individuals' valuation distributions using a stochastic payment card approach. Ecological Economics 2005, 55:143-154.
32. Welsh M.P., Poe G.L. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998, 36:170-185.