Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Sc-X: Calibrating Stated Choice Surveys With Experimental Auction Markets

Contents:

Author Info

  • Alfnes, Frode
  • Rickertsen, Kyrre

Abstract

Experimental auctions (X) use real economic incentives but are limited by available products and locally recruited samples. Stated choice (SC) surveys can use a representative sample to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) for hypothetical products with unavailable characteristics. However, a number of studies conclude that surveys give biased WTP estimates. We designed a method, SC-X, to calibrate the WTP estimates from stated choice surveys with WTP observed in experimental auctions. This method allows us to extend the results from auctions to products with unavailable characteristics and to socioeconomic groups not included in the auction. The SC-X method is illustrated using Norwegian consumers' preferences for country-of-origin and hormone status for beef.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/25814
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by International Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa with number 25814.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae03:25814

Contact details of provider:
Email:
Web page: http://www.iaae-agecon.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Institutional and Behavioral Economics; Marketing;

Other versions of this item:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Staff General Research Papers 701, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  2. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2003. "European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 396-405.
  3. John List & M Margolis & Jason Shogren, 1998. "Hypothetical-actual bid calibration of a multi-good auction," Framed Field Experiments 00171, The Field Experiments Website.
  4. Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Kliebenstein, James, 1995. "Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets," Staff General Research Papers 835, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  5. Noussair, C.N. & Robin, S. & Ruffieux, B., 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-378702, Tilburg University.
  6. John List & Jason Shogren, 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00296, The Field Experiments Website.
  7. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-233, March.
  8. Fox, John A. & Shogren, J. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James, 2003. "Cvm-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets," Staff General Research Papers 11935, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  9. John List, 2001. "Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards," Framed Field Experiments 00163, The Field Experiments Website.
  10. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox, 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 916-923.
  11. Jeffrey R. Blend & Eileen O. van Ravenswaay, 1999. "Measuring Consumer Demand for Ecolabeled Apples," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1072-1077.
  12. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
  13. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027 Elsevier.
  14. Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan & Young, Trevor & James, Sallie, 2002. "Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Organisms in Food in the UK," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra 125064, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Brian Innes & John Cranfield, 2009. "Consumer preference for production-derived quality: analyzing perceptions of premium chicken production methods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 395-411.
  2. Julie A. Caswell & Siny Joseph, 2007. "Consumer Demand for Quality: Major Determinant for Agricultural and Food Trade in the Future?," Working Papers 2007-4, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
  3. Wendy J. Umberger & Dawn D. Thilmany McFadden & Amanda R. Smith, 2009. "Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 268-285.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae03:25814. See general 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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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