IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea12/124991.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does On-site Experience Affect Responses to Stated Preference Questions?

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Xiaoshu
  • Boyle, Kevin J.
  • Pullis, Genevieve

Abstract

An important issue in the design of stated-preference surveys is in the hypothetical setting whether providing information to the respondents can elicit valid value estimates. On-site experience with a resource is one way to provide respondents with first-hand information about the valuation object. In the research here we construct a treatment by providing the survey respondents an opportunity to have a walk through the forest. We compare the preference parameter estimates for on-site treatment with those for a mail survey in the context of a choice study of forest management practices. As both the sample/frame/mode and the information provided have been changed, we conduct both the on-site, pretest and on-site, posttest survey to differentiate the information effect. The results show that the stated preference is procedure invariant. The mail survey respondents are remarkably similar with both the on-site, pretest survey and the on-site, posttest survey. It indicates a mail scenario can provide sufficient information through appropriate description, and an on-site experience is not always necessary for respondents to estimate policy relevant values.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Pullis, Genevieve, 2012. "Does On-site Experience Affect Responses to Stated Preference Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124991, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:124991
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124991
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124991/files/LiEtAlRev.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124991?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. Kevin C. Urama & Ian Hodge, 2006. "Participatory Environmental Education and Willingness to Pay for River Basin Management: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(4), pages 542-561.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2009. "Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 380-387, March.
    3. Daniel Mccollum & Kevin Boyle, 2005. "The Effect of Respondent Experience/Knowledge in the Elicitation of Contingent Values: An Investigation of Convergent Validity, Procedural Invariance and Reliability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(1), pages 23-33, January.
    4. John C. Bergstrom & John R. Stoll & Alan Randall, 1990. "The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 614-621.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 161-181, September.
    6. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    8. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
    9. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter & Akay, Alpaslan, 2011. "The effect of power outages and cheap talk on willingness to pay to reduce outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 790-798, September.
    10. Kevin J. Boyle, 1989. "Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(1), pages 57-63.
    11. Frör, Oliver, 2008. "Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence using cognitive psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 570-581, December.
    12. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    13. Jennifer Tkac, 1998. "The Effects of Information on Willingness-to-Pay Values of Endangered Species," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1214-1220.
    14. John C. Bergstrom & Jeffrey H. Dorfman, 1994. "Commodity Information and Willingness-to-Pay for Groundwater Quality Protection," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 16(3), pages 413-425.
    15. Wendy Kenyon & Gareth Edwards-Jones, 1998. "What Level of Information Enables the Public to Act Like Experts When Evaluating Ecological Goods?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 463-475.
    16. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    17. Boyle, Kevin J. & Welsh, Michael P. & Bishop, Richard C. & Baumgartner, Robert M., 1995. "Validating Contingent Valuation With Surveys Of Experts," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-8, October.
    18. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    19. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    20. Karl C. Samples & John A. Dixon & KMarcia M. Gowen, 1986. "Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 306-312.
    21. Arvin B. Vista & Randall S. Rosenberger & Alan R. Collins, 2009. "If You Provide It, Will They Read It? Response Time Effects in a Choice Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 365-377, September.
    22. Olivier Chanel & Susan Cleary & Stéphane Luchini, 2007. "Individual Responsiveness to Information in CV Surveys : Commitment Matters," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(5), pages 761-779.
    23. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Tinch, Dugald, 2010. "Differences between Decision and Experienced Utility: An Investigation using the Choice Experiment method," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2010-13, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    24. Tisdell, Clem & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2008. "Contingent valuation as a dynamic process," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1443-1458, August.
    25. Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 80-99, July.
    26. Spash, Clive L., 2002. "Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 665-687, October.
    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. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Holmes, Thomas P. & LaRouche, Genevieve Pullis, 2014. "The effect of on-site forest experience on stated preferences for low-impact timber harvesting programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 348-362.
    2. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    3. Tisdell, Clem & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2008. "Contingent valuation as a dynamic process," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1443-1458, August.
    4. Robert W. Kling & Charles F. Revier & Karin Sable, 2004. "Estimating the Public Good Value of Preserving a Local Historic Landmark: The Role of Non-substitutability and Citizen Information," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(10), pages 2025-2041, September.
    5. Kularatne, Thamarasi & Wilson, Clevo & Lee, Boon & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Tourists’ before and after experience valuations: A unique choice experiment with policy implications for the nature-based tourism industry," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 529-543.
    6. Lyssenko, Nikita & Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2009. "`Been there done that': Disentangling option value effects from user heterogeneity when valuing natural resources with a use component," MPRA Paper 21976, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Apr 2010.
    7. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Dynamic Processes in the Contingent Valuation of an Endangered Mammal Species," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55064, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    8. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Arvin B. Vista & Randall S. Rosenberger & Alan R. Collins, 2009. "If You Provide It, Will They Read It? Response Time Effects in a Choice Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 365-377, September.
    10. Koundouri, Phoebe, 2004. "Econometrics Informing Natural Resources Management:Selected Empirical Analyses," MPRA Paper 38234, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Rousseau, Sandra & Vranken, Liesbet, 2013. "Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labeled organic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 31-43.
    13. Tisdell, Clement A., 2003. "Influences of Knowledge of Wildlife Species on Patterns of Willingness to pay for their Conservation," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48972, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    14. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    15. Wang, Xi & Curtis, Kynda R. & Moeltner, Klaus, 2011. "Modeling the Impact of New Information on Consumer Preferences for Specialty Meat Products," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100540, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Dynamic Processes in Contingent Valuation: A Case Study Involving the Mahogany Glider," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51414, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    17. Needham, Katherine & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2018. "What is the causal impact of information and knowledge in stated preference studies?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 69-89.
    18. Pascal Haegeli & Wolfgang Haider & Margo Longland & Ben Beardmore, 2010. "Amateur decision-making in avalanche terrain with and without a decision aid: a stated choice survey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 52(1), pages 185-209, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Welling, Malte & Sagebiel, Julian & Rommel, Jens, 2023. "Information processing in stated preference surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Financial Economics; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea12:124991. 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.