Testing for hypothetical bias in willingness to support a reforestation program

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 282-289

  Krawczyk, Michał ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Experimental methodology; Hypothetical bias; Matching; Reforestation

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; REFORESTATION;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY; FOREST PROTECTION; HYPOTHETICAL BIAS; IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT; MATCHING; PER CAPITA;

SOFTWARE TESTING;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HABITAT RESTORATION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; METHODOLOGY; NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION; REFORESTATION;

POLAND;

EID: 84867400445     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2012.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Alfnes F., Yue C., Jensen H. Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2010, 37(2):147.
2. Becker N., Freeman S. The economic value of old growth trees in Israel. Forest Policy and Economics 2009, 11(8):608-615.
3. Blamey R., Bennett J., Morrison M. Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 1999, 75(1):126-141.
4. Brown T., Ajzen I., Hrubes D. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 46(2):353-361.
5. Carson R., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37(1):181-210.
6. Frank B. Good news for experimenters: subjects do not care about your welfare. Economics Letters 1998, 61(2):171-174.
7. Greiner, B., 2004. The online recruitment system orsee 2.0-a guide for the organization of experiments in economics. University of Cologne, Working Paper Series in Economics, 10, 2004.
8. Harrison G., Rutström E. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results 2008, vol. 1. 752-767.
9. Johansson-Stenman O., Svedsater H. Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: the importance of cognitive consistency. The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 2008, 8(1):1898.
10. Lindhjem H. 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 2007, 12(4):251-277.
11. Loomis J., Traynor K., Brown T. Trichotomous choice: a possible solution to dual response objectives in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1999, 24:572-583.
12. Madureira L., Nunes L., Borges J., Falcão A. Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: a Portuguese case study. Journal of Forest Economics 2011, 17(4):399-414.
13. McConnell K. Does altruism undermine existence value?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 32(1):22-37.
14. Messer K., Poe G., Rondeau D., Schulze W., Vossler C. Social preferences and voting: an exploration using a novel preference revealing mechanism. Journal of Public Economics 2010, 94(3-4):308-317.
15. Morrison M., Brown T. 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(3):307-326.
16. Murphy J., Allen P., Stevens T., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30(3):313-325.
17. Murphy J., Stevens T. Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, and experimental economics. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2004, 33(2):271-281.
18. Murphy J., Stevens T., Yadav L. A comparison of induced value and home-grown value experiments to test for hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2010, 47(1):111-123.
19. Whitehead J., Cherry T. 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(4):247-261.