Framing for incentive compatibility in choice modelling
AbstractThe incentives that motivate respondents to reveal their preferences truthfully have been a long-standing area of research in the non-market valuation literature. A number of studies have been undertaken to investigate incentive compatibility in nonmarket valuation. Most of these used laboratory environments rather than field surveys (e.g. Carson and Burton, 2008, Harrison, 2007, Lusk and Schroeder, 2004, Racevskis and Lupi, 2008). Only a few studies investigating incentive compatibility have considered multi-attribute public goods with an explicit provision rule in a choice experiment (Carson and Groves, 2007, Collins and Vossler, 2009, Carson and Burton, 2008). The design of a choice modelling study that avoids strategic behaviour has proven particularly difficult because of multiple choices and difficulties in developing a majority voting provision rule. This study investigates the impact of the inclusion of a framing statement for incentive compatibility in a field survey choice modelling study. An incentive compatible statement (provision rule) that sets out to respondents the rule relating to when the good under consideration will be provided was employed. The impact of a provision rule across three alternative choice modelling multiple choice questionnaires was tested by comparing results between split samples with and without a provision rule. Four split samples were used to test the impact of a provision rule on preferences across different communities including local/rural residents and distant/urban residents. A choice modelling analysis that involved a conditional logit model and a random parameter model was used to elicit household willingness to pay for improvements in environmental quality in the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. The results of the study show that the inclusion of a provision rule had an effect on preferences in the distant/urban communities. However, the impact of a provision rule in the local/rural community sub-samples was negligible. This study suggests that the impact of a provision rule should be analysed in the context of different community characteristics.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia with number 59101.
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www4.agr.gc.ca
More information through EDIRC
Choice modelling; Incentive comparability; Provision rule; Non-market valuation; Environment; Environmental Economics and Policy;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-05-22 (All new papers)
- NEP-DCM-2010-05-22 (Discrete Choice Models)
- NEP-ENV-2010-05-22 (Environmental Economics)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.