Consequentiality and contingent values: An emerging paradigm

The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 122-141

  Poe, Gregory ^a   Vossler, Christian ^b  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871402460     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (36)

1. Aadland, D., B. Anatchkova, B. Grandjean, J.F. Shogren, B. Simon and P.A. Taylor (2007)), 'Valuing access to our public lands: a unique public good pricing experiment', selected paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association meetings, Portland, Oregon, July.
2. Bohm, P. (1972)), 'Estimating demands for public goods: an experiment', European Economic Review, 3, 111-30.
3. Burton, A.C., K.S. Carson, S.M. Chilton and W.G. Hutchinson (2007)), 'Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda', Environmental and Resource Economics, 38, 4, 513-25.
4. Cameron, T.A., G.L. Poe, R.G. Ethier and W.D. Schulze (2002)), 'Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same?', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 391-425.
5. Carson, R.T. (1997)), 'Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope', in R.J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene and N. Schwartz (eds), Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods, Boston, MA: Kluwer, pp. 127-63.
6. Carson, R.T and T. Groves (2007)), 'Incentive and informational properties of preference questions', Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 1, 181-210.
7. Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores and N.F. Meade (2001)), 'Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence', Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 2, 173-210.
8. Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin and J.L. Wright (1996)), 'Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods', Land Economics, 72, 1, 80-99.
9. Carson R.T., T. Groves and M.J. Machina (1997)), 'Stated preference questions: context and optimal response', paper presented at the National science foundation preference elicitation symposium, University of California, Berkeley.
10. Carson R.T., T. Groves and M.J. Machina (1999)), 'Incentive and informational properties of preferences questions', plenary address, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo, Norway.
11. Carson, R., T. Groves, J. List and M. Machina (2004)), 'Probabilistic influence and supplemental benefits: a field test of two key assumptions underlying stated preferences', unpublished draft manuscript.
12. Champ, P.A., R.C. Bishop, T.C. Brown and D.W. McCollum (1997)), 'Using donation mechanisms to value non-use benefits from public goods', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 2, 151-63.
13. Collins, J.P. and C.A. Vossler (2009)), 'Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58, 2, 226-35.
14. Cummings, R.G., G.W. Harrison and E.E. Ruström (1995)), 'Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?', American Economic Review, 85, 1, 260-66.
15. Dubourg, W.R., M.W. Jones-Lee and G. Loomes (1994)), 'Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity', Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 115-33.
16. Gibbard, A. (1973)), 'Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result', Econometrica, 41, 3, 587-602.
17. Haab, T.C. and K.E. McConnell (1997)), 'Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 2, 251-70.
18. Harrison, G.W. and J.A. List (2004)), 'Field experiments', Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009-55.
19. Harrison, G.W. and E. Ruström (2008)), 'Chapter 81: experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods', Handbook of Experimental Economics, 1, 752-67.
20. Herriges, J., C. Kling, C-C Liu and J. Tobias (2010)), 'What are the consequences of consequentiality?', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.
21. Johnston, R.J. (2006)), 'Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52, 1, 469-81.
22. Kahneman, D., P. Slovic and A. Tversky (1982)), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Kuhn, T.S. (1970)), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. Landry, C.E. and J.A. List (2007)), 'Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence from the field', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 2, 420-29.
25. List, J.A. and C.A. Gallet (2001)), 'What experiential protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: evidence from a meta analysis', Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 3, 251-4.
26. Little, J. and R. Berrens (2004)), 'Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigations using meta analysis', Economics Bulletin, 3, 6, 1-13.
27. Murphy, J.J., P.G. Allen, T.H. Stevens and D. Weatherhead (2005)), 'A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation', Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 3, 313-25.
28. Murphy, J.J. and T.H. Stevens (2004)), 'Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, and experimental economics', Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 33, 2, 182-92.
29. Opaluch, J.J. and K. Segerson (1989)), 'Rational roots of "irrational" behavior: new theories of economic decision-making', Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 18, 2, 81-95.
30. Poe, G.L., J.E. Clark, D. Rondeau and W.D. Schulze (2002)), 'Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation', Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 1, 105-31.
31. Ready, R.C., J.C. Whitehead and G.C. Blomquist (1995)), 'Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 2, 181-6.
32. Satterthwaite, M. (1975)), 'Strategy-proofness and arrow conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and welfare functions', Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 2, 187-217.
33. Smith, V.L. (1976)), 'Experimental economics: induced value theory', American Economic Review, 66, 2, 274-9.
34. Taylor, L.O., M. McKee, S.K. Laury and R.G. Cummings (2001)), 'Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism', Economics Letters, 71, 61-5.
35. Vossler, C.A. and M. McKee (2006)), 'Induced value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms', Environmental and Resource Economics, 35, 137-68.
36. Vossler, C.A. and M.F. Evans (2010)), 'Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58, 3, 338-45.