The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys
AbstractResearchers using stated preference (SP) techniques have increasingly come to rely on what we call ?hypothetical baselines.? By the term ?hypothetical baseline,? we mean that respondents are provided with a description of a current state or baseline, but that this baseline is intentionally not the actual state of environmental quality, health or other baseline condition. Respondents are asked to disregard their existing status quo conditions for a new baseline. The SP researcher then poses a valuation question or choice task that is contingent not on the existing status quo state of the world, but rather the state of the world described in this new hypothetical baseline. In this paper we argue that SP researchers have often used hypothetical baselines without carefully considering the cognitive challenges this poses for respondents or the difficulties this practice creates for advising policy makers. We discuss the implications of hypothetical baselines on valuation and policy analysis, using arguments from the behavioral economics literature as well as from standard theory.
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 Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) in its series EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper with number sp201009s1.
Date of creation: Sep 2010
Date of revision: Sep 2010
Contact details of provider:
Postal: c/o IDRC, 22 Cross Street, #02-55, South Bridge Court, Singapore 048421
Phone: 6438 4844
Fax: 65 6438 7877
Web page: http://www.eepsea.net
More information through EDIRC
stated preference survey;
Other versions of this item:
- Whittington, Dale & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2011. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," Discussion Papers dp-11-11-efd, Resources For the Future.
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
- D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Francisco Alpizar & Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2008.
"Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment,"
Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 299-314, September.
- Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2007. "Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment," Working Papers in Economics 251, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- S. Dellavigna., 2011.
"Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field,"
N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 5.
- S. Dellavigna., 2011. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 4.
- Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-72, June.
- Alan Beggs & Kathryn Graddy, 2009. "Anchoring Effects: Evidence from Art Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 1027-39, June.
- Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
- Knetsch, Jack L. & Wong, Wei-Kang, 2009. "The endowment effect and the reference state: Evidence and manipulations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 407-413, August.
- Barton, David N. & Bergland, Olvar, 2010. "Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an ‘individual status quo’ modelling of farm specific water scarcity," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(03), pages 321-340, June.
- Boxall, Peter & Adamowicz, W.L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), December.
- Dale Whittington, 2004. "Ethical Issues with Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries: A Note on Informed Consent and Other Concerns," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 507-515, August.
- Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
- Peter Boxall & W. L. (Vic) Adamowicz & Amanda Moon, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 503-519, October.
- 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, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
- repec:pri:cepsud:1212 is not listed on IDEAS
- William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
- Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
- W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2008. "The Economic Value of Water Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 169-187, October.
- Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Arief Anshory yusuf).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.