IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v93y2017i2p258-268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount

Author

Listed:
  • Peter A. Groothuis
  • Tanga M. Mohr
  • John C. Whitehead
  • Kristan Cockerill

Abstract

Recent empirical and theoretical research stresses it is important for survey respondents to believe that survey votes are consequential, meaning their votes can potentially influence whether a proposed policy is undertaken. We test the effect of a randomly assigned referendum tax on consequentiality, using a survey about water conservation in western North Carolina. We find that consequentiality is endogenous to hypothetical referendum responses. Specifically, as the assigned tax amount increases, respondents are less likely to find the survey consequential. As in related studies, respondents who self-report they perceive the survey to be consequential have a higher willingness to pay.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2017. "Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 258-268.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:93:y:2017:i:2:p:258-268
    Note: DOI: 10.3368/le.93.2.258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/93/2/258
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    2. Gutierrez-Castillo, Ana & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael A., 2022. "Conservation easement landowners' willingness to accept for forest thinning and the impact of information," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    3. Tensay Hadush Meles & Razack Lokina & Erica Louis Mtenga & Julieth Julius Tibanywana, 2023. "Stated Preferences with Survey Consequentiality and Outcome Uncertainty: A Split Sample Discrete Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(4), pages 717-754, December.
    4. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.
    6. Zawojska Ewa, 2017. "A Consequential Contingent Valuation Referendum: Still Not Enough to Elicit True Preferences for Public Goods!," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 2(49), pages 73-90, December.
    7. Tobias Börger & Tenaw G. Abate & Margrethe Aanesen & Ewa Zawojska, 2021. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Experimental Design Effects on Self-Reported Perceptions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(2), pages 407-424.
    8. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Marco Horvath, 2021. "Consequentiality, Elicitation Formats, and the Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity: Evidence from Germany," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(3), pages 626-640.
    9. Kolstoe, Sonja & Naald, Brian Vander & Cohan, Alison, 2022. "A tale of two samples: Understanding WTP differences in the age of social media," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    10. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Ndefo & Thomas Poder, 2020. "Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects?," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 11-36, April.
    11. Black, Michael A. & Woodward, Richard T. & Morgan, Cristine & Bagnall, Dianna & Kiella, Erin & Cisneros, Marissa & McIntosh, William Alex, 2020. "An empirical estimate of value of manageable soil quality," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304430, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Zawojska, Ewa & Gastineau, Pascal & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Cheze, Benoit & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Measuring policy consequentiality perceptions in stated preference surveys," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313977, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. O. Ashton Morgan & William L.Huth & Paul Hindsley, 2017. "Examining the Perceptions and Effects of Survey Consequentiality Across Population Subgroups," Working Papers 17-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    14. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2018. "Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?," Cahiers de recherche 18-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    15. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    16. Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan, 2021. "Consumers’ Preferences for Eco-labels on Plants: The Influence of Trust and Consequentiality Perceptions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:93:y:2017:i:2:p:258-268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.