Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 86, Issue , 2013, Pages 137-147

  Vossler, Christian A ^a   Watson, Sharon B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Consequentiality; External validity; Field experiment; Stated preferences; Voting

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873457095     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Blumenschein K., Blomquist G.C., Johannesson M., Horn N., Freeman P. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. The Economic Journal 2008, 118:114-137.
2. Bulte E., Gerking S., List J.A., de Zeeuw A. The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 49:330-342.
3. Cameron T.A., James M.D. Efficient estimation methods for use with closed-ended contingent valuation survey data. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1987, 69:269-276.
4. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Meade N.F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19:173-210.
5. Carson R.T., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37:181-210.
6. Carson, R., Groves, T., List, J., Machina, M., 2004. Probabilistic influence and supplemental benefits: a field test of the two key assumptions underlying stated preferences. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.
7. Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Mitchell, R.C., 1986. The use of simulated political markets to value public goods. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.
8. 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, 33:151-162.
9. Champ P.A., Brown T.C. A comparison of contingent and actual voting behavior. Proceedings from W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, 10th Interim Report 1997.
10. Dillman D.A., Smyth J.D., Christian L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2008, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 3rd ed.
11. Farquharson R. Theory of Voting 1969, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
12. Flores N.E., Carson R.T. The relationship between the income elasticities of demand and willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, 33:287-295.
13. Herriges J., Kling C., Liu C.-C., Tobias J. What are the consequences of consequentiality?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2010, 59(1):67-81.
14. Johnston R.J. Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 52:469-481.
15. Landry C.E., List J.A. Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence from the field. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 89:420-432.
16. List J.A., Gallet C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20:241-254.
17. Lopes, J., 2010. Middleborough Voters Approve Community Preservation Act. Middleborough Gazette, November 4.
18. Nepal M., Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K. Assessing perceived consequentiality: evidence from a contingent valuation survey on global climate change. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics 2009, 14(P09):14-29.
19. Schläpfer F. Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:415-429.
20. Schläpfer F., Roschewitz A., Hanley N. Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behavior. Ecological Economics 2004, 51(1-2):1-16.
21. Vossler C.A., Doyon M., Rondeau D. Truth in consequences: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 2012, 4(4):145-171.
22. Vossler C.A., Evans M.F. Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 58(3):338-345.
23. Vossler C.A., Kerkvliet J. A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 45(3):631-649.
24. Vossler C.A., Kerkvliet J., Polasky S., Gainutdinova O. Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2003, 51(2):261-277.
25. Wooldridge J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data 2010, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 2nd ed.