A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 58, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 35-57

  Meyerhoff, Jürgen ^a   Mørkbak, Morten Raun ^b   Olsen, Søren Bøye ^c  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Hierarchical logistic regression; Mixed effects; Protest behaviour; Stated preferences; Survey design; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT;

LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS; MIXED EFFECTS; PROTEST BEHAVIOUR; STATED PREFERENCES; SURVEY DESIGN; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SURVEYS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM; SURVEY DESIGN; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84897964809     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-013-9688-1     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Abildtrup J, Garcia S, Olsen SB, Stenger A (2012) Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol Econ (in press). doi: 10. 1016/j. ecolecon. 2013. 01. 001.
2. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008) Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J Public Econ 92: 1047-1060.
3. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. The National Ocean and Atmospheric Association's Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP), Washington.
4. Bartczak A (2010) Wycena korzyści z poprawy jakości wody kranowej i owierzchniowej w Polsce. Ekonomia i Środowisko 38(2): 123-141.
5. Bartczak A, Chilton S, Meyerhoff J (2012) Valuing improvements to threatened lynx populations in Poland. An application of choice experiments with an experimental measure of risk preferences of individuals, Manuscript, Warsaw.
6. Bateman I, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
7. Bateman I, Jones AP (2003) Contrasting conventional multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in U. K. woodland recreation values. Land Econ 79(2): 235-258.
8. Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Kerkvliet J (1997) A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79(1): 252-266.
9. Bonnichsen O (2011) Elicitation of ostomy pouch preferences: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient 4(3): 163-175.
10. Bonnichsen O, Ladenburg J (2009) Using an ex-ante entreatry to Reduce protest zero bias in stated preference surveys a health economic case. J Choice Model 2(2): 83-98.
11. Boyle KJ (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
12. Boyle KJ, Bergstrom JC (1999) Doubt, doubt, and doubters: the genesis of a new research agenda? In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences. Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 183-206.
13. Brookshire DS, Thayer MA, Schulze WD, d'Arge RC (1982) Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches. Am Econ Rev 72(1): 165-177.
14. Brown KM, Taylor LO (2000) Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods. J Econ Behav Organ 43(1): 127-139.
15. Campbell D, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB (2012) Assessing the impact of opt-out definitions in choice experiments: a case study on food safety. Paper manuscript.
16. Cameron TA, Poe GL, Ethier RG, Schulze WD (2002) Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same? J Environ Econ Manag 44: 391-425.
17. Carlsson F, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB (2012) The first time is the hardest: a test of ordering effects in choice experiments. J Choice Model 5(2): 19-37.
18. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19(2): 173-210.
19. Cherry TL, Crocker TD, Shogren JF (2003) Rationality spillovers. J Environ Econ Manag 45(1): 63-84.
20. Christensen T, Mørkbak MR, Evald SST, Jensen JD (2011) Danish consumers' perceptions of food additives and other technologies. FOI Commissioned work No. 2011/4.
21. Christoffersen LB (2006) Juvre meadow-an economic analysis. Report from FOI, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
22. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL (2000) A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60: 821-836.
23. Czajkowski M, Buszko-Briggs M, Hanley N (2009) Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecol Econ 68(12): 2910-2917.
24. Daubert JT, Young RA (1981) Recreational demands for maintaining instream flows: a contingent valuation approach. Am J Agric Econ 63(4): 666-676.
25. Day BH, Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Dupont D, Louviere JJ, Morimoto S, Scarpa R, Wang P (2012) Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. J Environ Econ Manag 63: 73-91.
26. Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method-2007 update with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York.
27. Dubgaard A, Olsen SB, Jespersen MML, Bonnichsen O, Klagenberg PA, Nielsen C-CM (2011) Opfattelse af risiko for oversvømmelse 2010 (Perception of the risk of flooding 2010-in Danish only). Joint report from Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, and the Danish Coastal Authority, Lemvig, Denmark.
28. Dupont DP (2004) Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 49(3): 273-286.
29. Glenk K, Colombo S (2011) Designing policies to mitigate the agricultural contribution to climate change: an assessment of soil based carbon sequestration and its ancillary effects. Clim Change 105: 43-66.
30. Glenk K, Hall C, Liebe U, Meyerhoff J (2011a) Pesticide use in the Scotch malt whisky supply chain-analysing preference heterogeneity of whisky consumers. Manuscript, Edinburgh.
31. Glenk K, Lago M, Moran D (2011b) Public preferences for water quality improvements: implications for the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Scotland. Water Policy 13(5): 645-662.
32. Goldstein H (1995) Multilevel statistical models, 2nd edn. Edward Arnold, London.
33. Hanemann M (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ? Am Econ Rev 81(3): 635-647.
34. Hanley N, Shogren JF, White B (1997) Environmental economics in theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan, England.
35. Hanley N, Macmillan DC, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998a) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49(1): 1-15.
36. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz WL (1998b) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11(3-4): 413-428.
37. Hartje V, Meyer I, Meyerhoff J (2002) Kosten einer möglichen Klimaveränderung auf Sylt. In: Daschkeit A, Schottes P (eds) Sylt- Klimafolgen für Mensch und Küste. Springer, Berlin, pp 181-218.
38. Hasler B, Brodersen SL, Christensen LP, Christensen T, Dubgaard A, Hansen HE, Kataria M, Martinsen L, Nissen CJ, Wulff AF (2009) Denmark: assessing economic benefits of Good Ecological Status under the EU Water Framework Directive. Testing practical guidelines in Odense river basin. Case study report, AquaMoney.
39. Hayes KM, Tyrrell TJ, Anderson G (1992) Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements in the upper Narragansett Bay. Marine Resour Econ 7: 75-85.
40. Heberlein TA, Baumgartner R (1979) Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: a quantitative analysis of the published literature. Am Sociol Rev 43: 447-462.
41. Holms TP, Kramer RA (1995) An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 29: 121-132.
42. Hoyos D, Mariel P, Garmendia E (2011) The management of Natura 2000 Network sites: a discrete choice experiment approach. Working paper, Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística), Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao.
43. Jensen CL, Nissen CJ, Olsen SB, Boesen M (2010) Analyse af udenlandske fisketurister i Danmark (An analysis of tourists angling in Denmark-in Danish only). Working paper from FOI, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. (forthcoming).
44. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest response and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for Stormwater pollution abatment. Ecol Econ 33: 251-265.
45. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14(1): 131-150.
46. Jorgensen BS, Wilson MA, Heberlein TA (2001) Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecol Econ 36: 133-148.
47. Källstrøm MN, Hasler B, Olsen SB, Brodersen SL, Viuf P, Levin G (2010) Testing different approaches to Benefit Transfers between two sites in the same country, valuing the improvement of water quality. In: Paper presented at the 11th ISEE conference. Oldenburg and Bremen, Germany, August 22-25 (2010).
48. Kamp A (2010) Værdisætning af faciliteter og services i Isfjordsområdet (Valuation of facilities and services in the Icefjord area-in Danish only). Unpublished report. University of Copenhagen.
49. Kelman H (1958) Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. J Confl Resolut 1: 51-60.
50. Klaphake A, Meyerhoff J (2004) Zur Zahlungsbereitschaft für Eintrittspreise der Besucher der Parkanlagen Schloss Sanssouci und Schloss Charlottenburg. Report. Berlin.
51. Kontoleon A, Yabe M, Darby L (2005) Alternative payment vehicles in contingent valuation: the case of genetically modified foods. MPRA paper No. 1827, University of Cambridge, UK. http://mpra. ub. uni-muenchen. de/1827/.
52. Ladenburg J, Olsen SB (2008) Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manag 56(3): 275-285.
53. Ladenburg J, Olsen SB (2009) Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys. In: Paper presented at the EAERE 2009 annual conference, Amsterdam, Holland 24-27 June, 2009.
54. List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Q J Econ 118(1): 41-71.
55. Longo A, Hoyos D, Markandya A (2012) Willingness to pay for ancillary benefits of climate change mitigation. Environ Resour Econ 51(1): 119-140.
56. Marta-Pedroso C, Freitas H, Domingos T (2007) Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecol Econ 62: 388-398.
57. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2008) Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ? Environ Resour Econ 39(4): 433-446.
58. Meyerhoff J, Dehnhardt A (2007) The European water framework directive and economic valuation of wetlands: the restoration of floodplains along the River Elbe. Eur Environ 17(1): 18-36.
59. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2006) Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecol Econ 57(4): 583-594.
60. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2009) Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ 85(3): 515-528.
61. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2010) Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: a meta-study. Ecol Econ 70(2): 366-374.
62. Meyerhoff J, Angeli D (2011) Willingness to pay for reducing eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Report for the Federal German Environmental Protection Agency. Berlin.
63. Meyerhoff J, Angeli D, Hartje V (2010c) Social benefits of implementing a national strategy on biological diversity in Germany. Environ Sci Policy 23: 109-119.
64. Meyerhoff J, Dehnhardt A, Hartje V (2010a) Take your swim suit along: the value of improving urban bathing sites in the metropolitan area of Berlin. J Environ Plan Manag 53(1): 107-124.
65. Meyerhoff J, Ohl C, Hartje V (2008) Präferenzen für die Ausgestaltung der Windkraft in der Landschaft. Ergebnisse einer Online-Umfrage in Deutschland. Berlin.
66. Meyerhoff J, Ohl C, Hartje V (2010b) Landscape externalities of onshore wind power generation. Energy Policy 38(1): 82-92.
67. Meyers-Levy J (1989) Gender differences in information processing: a selective interpretation. In: Cafferata P, Tybout AM (eds) Cognitive and affective responses to advertising. Lexington, Books, Canada.
68. Mitani Y, Flores N (2007) Does gender matter for demand revelation in threshold public goods experiments? Econ Bull 3(27): 1-7.
69. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the future, Washington DC.
70. Mogas J, Riera P, Bennett J (2005) Accounting for afforestation externalities: a comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling. Eur Environ 15(1): 44-58.
71. Mørkbak MR, Nordström J (2009) The impact of information on consumer preferences for different animal food production methods. J Consum Policy. doi: 10. 1007/s10603-009-9106-9.
72. Mørkbak MR, Christensen T, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen SB (2011) Is embedding entailed in consumer valuation of food safety characteristics? Eur Rev Agric Econ. doi: 10. 1093/erae/jbr021.
73. Mørkbak MR, Jensen JD (2012) Do consumers' preferences change when on vacation? A willingness to pay study on apples and honey. The joint AAEA/EAAE conference on 'Food Environment: The Effects of Context on Food Choice', May 30-31, 2012, Tufts University, Boston, MA.
74. Morrison MD, Blamey RK, Bennett JW (2000) Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resour Econ 16: 407-422.
75. Nielsen JS (2011) use of the internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: a comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resour Energy Econ 33: 119-129.
76. Nielsen AB, Olsen SB, Lundhede T (2007) An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc Urban Plan 80(1-2): 63-71.
77. Olsen SB (2009) Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environ Res Econ 44(4): 591-610.
78. Olsen SB, Ladenburg J, Petersen ML, Lopdrup U, Hansen AS, Dubgaard A (2005) Motorways versus Nature-A Welfare Economic Valuation of Impacts. Report from FOI and IMV, Copenhagen.
79. Rosenberger RS, Johnston RJ (2009) Selection effects in meta-analysis and benefit transfer: avoiding unintended consequences. Land Econ 85(3): 410-428.
80. Sheehan K (2001) E-mail survey response rates: a review. J Comput Mediat Commun 6.
81. Söderquist T (1998) Why give up money for the Baltic Sea? Environ Resour Econ 12: 249-254.
82. Strazzera E, Genius M, Scarpa R, Hutchinson WG (2003) The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites. Environ Resour Econ 25: 461-476.
83. Teal G, Loomis JB (2000) Effects of gender and parental status on the economic valuation of increasing wetlands, reducing wildlife contamination and increasing salmon populations. Soc Nat Resour 13(1): 1-14.
84. Tranberg J, Christoffersen LB, Dubgaard A, Olsen SB, Lassen C (2005) Opfattelse af risiko for oversvømmelse (Perception of the risk of flooding-in Danish only). Report from the Danish Coastal Authority, Lemvig, Denmark.
85. von Haefen R, Massey DM, Adamowicz WL (2005) Serial nonparticipation in repeated discrete choice models. Am J Agri Econo 87(4): 1061-1076.
86. Whittington D, Adamowicz V (2011) The use of hypothetical baselines in stated preference surveys. Discussion Paper Series, December 2011 EfD DP 11-11.
87. Wronka T (2004) Ökonomische Umweltbewertung: vergleichende Analyse und neuere Entwicklungen der kontingenten Bewertung am Beispiel der Artenvielfalt und Trinkwasserqualität. Kiel.
88. Yammarino FJ, Skinner SJ, Childers TL (1991) Understanding mail survey response behavior. Public Opin Q 55(4): 613-639.