IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21104.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method: distinguishing strategic behaviour from the anchoring heuristic

Author

Listed:
  • Bateman, Ian J.
  • Day, Brett H.
  • Dupont, Diane P.
  • Georgiou, Stavros

Abstract

The contingent valuation method for estimating willingness to pay for public goods typically adopts a single referendum question format which is statistically inefficient. As an alternative, Cooper, Hanemann and Signorello (2002) propose the 'one-and-one-half bound' (OOHB) format allowing researchers to question respondents about both a lower and higher limit upon project costs, thereby securing substantial statistical efficiency gains. These bounds are presented prior to the elicitation of responses thereby avoiding the negative 'surprise' induced by an unanticipated second question. However, this approach conflicts with the Gibbard-Satterthwaite result that only a single referendum format question is incentive compatible. The OOHB method may therefore be liable to strategic behaviour or reliance upon the anchoring heuristic observed in other repeated response elicitation formats. In a first formal test of the method we show that it fails crucial tests of procedural invariance and induces strategic behaviour amongst responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Dupont, Diane P. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2006. "Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method: distinguishing strategic behaviour from the anchoring heuristic," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21104, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21104
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21104/files/sp06ba03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    4. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    6. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    7. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    8. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    9. Sutton, William R. & Larson, Douglas M. & Jarvis, Lovell S., 2004. "A New Approach For Assessing The Costs Of Living With Wildlife In Developing Countries," Working Papers 11951, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    10. Ian Langford & Ian Bateman & Hugh Langford, 1996. "A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(3), pages 197-211, April.
    11. Georgiou, Stavros & Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Day, Rosemary J., 2000. "Coastal bathing water health risks: developing means of assessing the adequacy of proposals to amend the 1976 EC directive," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 49-68, April.
    12. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    13. Philippe Le Goffe, 1995. "The benefits of improvements in coastal water quality : a contingent approach," Post-Print hal-02364342, HAL.
    14. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    15. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    16. S Georgiou & I H Langford & I J Bateman & R K Turner, 1998. "Determinants of Individuals' Willingness to Pay for Perceived Reductions in Environmental Health Risks: A Case Study of Bathing Water Quality," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(4), pages 577-594, April.
    17. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    18. Desvousges, William H. & Smith, V. Kerry & Fisher, Ann, 1987. "Option price estimates for water quality improvements: A contingent valuation study for the monongahela river," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 248-267, September.
    19. Riccardo Scarpa & Ian Bateman, 2000. "Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 299-311.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Jorge Araña & Carmelo León, 2007. "Repeated Dichotomous Choice Formats for Elicitation of Willingness to Pay: Simultaneous Estimation and Anchoring Effect," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 475-497, April.
    4. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    6. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Longo, Alberto, 2012. "Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1214-1225.
    9. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2015. "Reference dependence, consequentiality and social desirability in value elicitation: A study of fair labor labeling," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    11. Ricardo Faria & Raul Matsuhita & Jorge Nogueira & Benjamin Tabak, 2007. "Realism Versus Statistical Efficiency: A Note on Contingent Valuation with Follow-up Queries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(4), pages 451-462, December.
    12. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2015. "Fair farming: Preferences for fair labor certification using four elicitation methods," MPRA Paper 62546, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    14. Neil Powe & Kenneth Willis & Guy Garrod, 2006. "Difficulties in valuing street light improvement: trust, surprise and bound effects," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 371-381.
    15. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    16. Kim, GwanSeon & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2012. "A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12, August.
    17. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    18. James B. McDonald & Daniel B. Walton & Bryan Chia, 2020. "Distributional Assumptions and the Estimation of Contingent Valuation Models," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 56(2), pages 431-460, August.
    19. Carson, Katherine Silz & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2009. "Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 219-225, March.
    20. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:ags:aaea06:21104. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.