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

Contingent valuation: a new perspective

Contents:

Author Info

  • Felix Schlaepfer

    ()
    (Socioeconomic Institute, University of Zurich)

Abstract

After several decades of academic research on the contingent valuation (CV) method a consistent behavioral explanation of 'hypothetical bias' is still lacking. Based on evidence from economics, economic psychology and the political sciences, I propose an explanation that is based on two simple working hypotheses about respondent behaviour in contingent valuation surveys. The first hypothesis is that survey respondents are unable to form consistent preferences about unfamiliar goods unless the choice context offers reliable, informative cues that can be rationally exploited in simplified heuristics. The second hypothesis is that the probability and impact of strategic responses in dichotomous-choice questions about public goods depends on the extent to which the presented hypothetical costs differ from the actual costs. The literature on hypothetical bias is revisited in the light of these behavioral hypotheses. I find that the hypotheses are generally supported by the empirical data. Moreover, the hypotheses are able to explain several important empirical phenomena that previous research has not been able to explain. In particular, they solve the puzzle that pre-election polls, but not CV surveys, are able to predict actual referendum outcomes, and they explain why income effects on willingness to pay are lower in CV responses than in actual votes. If confirmed by further studies, the hypotheses will have important implications for future research and practice. First, the hypothetical costs presented in the dichotomous choice question should to be close enough to the actual costs to be credible to all respondents. This can be achieved by specifying the costs as a percentage (rather than absolute) change in taxes. Second, the respondents should be given the option to answer based on information about the positions of large parties and interest groups with known political orientation rather than based on the raw policy information. Theory and evidence suggest that this new survey paradigm largely eliminates the fundamental problems of the conventional stated preference methods.

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://www.soi.uzh.ch/research/wp/2007/wp0715.pdf
File Function: First version, 2007
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich in its series SOI - Working Papers with number 0715.

as in new window
Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2007
Date of revision:
Publication status: published in Ecological Economics 64, pp. 729-740, 2008
Handle: RePEc:soz:wpaper:0715

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Blümlisalpstrasse 10, CH-8006 Zürich
Phone: +41-1-634 22 05
Fax: +41-1-634 49 07
Email:
Web page: http://www.soi.uzh.ch/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Stated preferences; incentives; information; public goods;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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. Felix Schläpfer & Nick Hanley, 2006. "Contingent Valuation and Collective Choice," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 115-135, 02.
  2. Flores, Nicholas E. & Strong, Aaron, 2007. "Cost credibility and the stated preference analysis of public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 195-205, September.
  3. McFadden, Daniel, 1999. "Rationality for Economists?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 73-105, December.
  4. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
  5. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
  6. 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.
  7. Felix Schläpfer & Nick Hanley, 2003. "Do Local Landscape Patterns Affect the Demand for Landscape Amenities Protection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 21-34.
  8. Charles F. Manski, 2000. "Economic Analysis of Social Interactions," NBER Working Papers 7580, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
  10. Boyle Kevin J. & Desvousges William H. & Johnson F. Reed & Dunford Richard W. & Hudson Sara P., 1994. "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 64-83, July.
  11. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
  12. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
  13. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
  14. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
  15. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
  16. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-105, February.
  17. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum, 1997. "Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1495-1500.
  18. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
  19. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
  20. Schlapfer, Felix & Schmitt, Marcel, 2007. "Anchors, endorsements, and preferences: A field experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 229-243, September.
  21. Schlapfer, Felix & Brauer, Ingo, 2007. "Theoretical incentive properties of contingent valuation questions: Do they matter in the field?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 451-460, May.
  22. 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.
  23. Schkade David A. & Payne John W., 1994. "How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 88-109, January.
  24. Cummings, Ronald G, et al, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-21, June.
  25. Gowdy, John M., 2007. "Toward an experimental foundation for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 649-655, September.
  26. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
  27. John M. Gowdy, 2004. "The Revolution in Welfare Economics and Its Implications for Environmental Valuation and Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(2), pages 239-257.
  28. Smith, Vernon L, 1979. " An Experimental Comparison of Three Public Good Decision Mechanisms," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(2), pages 198-215.
  29. 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.
  30. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
  31. Ethier, Robert G. & Poe, Gregory L. & Schulze, William D. & Clark, Jeremy, 1997. "A Comparison Of Hypothetical Phone And Mail Contingent Valuation Responses For Green Pricing Electricity Programs," Working Papers 7245, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
  32. 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.
  33. Macmillan, Douglas C. & Philip, Lorna & Hanley, Nick & Alvarez-Farizo, Begona, 2002. "Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 49-59, November.
  34. Dubourg, W R & Jones-Lee, M W & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(256), pages 681-702, November.
  35. Arild Vatn, 2004. "Environmental Valuation and Rationality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 1-18.
  36. Schlapfer, Felix & Roschewitz, Anna & Hanley, Nick, 2004. "Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 1-16, November.
  37. Patricia A. Champ & Nicholas E. Flores & Thomas C. Brown & PJames Chivers, 2002. "Contingent Valuation and Incentives," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 591-604.
  38. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
  39. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
  40. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
  41. Jones, Philip & Hudson, John, 2000. "Civic Duty and Expressive Voting: Is Virtue Its Own Reward?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 3-16.
  42. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
  43. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-70, December.
  44. 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.
  45. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Goodman, Robert P, 1973. "Private Demands for Public Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 280-96, June.
  46. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
  47. Hidano, Noboru & Kato, Takaaki & Aritomi, Masakazu, 2005. "Benefits of participating in contingent valuation mail surveys and their effects on respondent behavior: a panel analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 63-80, January.
  48. Bengt Kristrom & Pere Riera, 1996. "Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 45-55, January.
  49. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
  50. 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.
  51. Begoña Álvarez-Farizo & Nick Hanley, 2006. "Improving the Process of Valuing Non-Market Benefits: Combining Citizens’ Juries with Choice Modelling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 465-478.
  52. Gowan, Charles & Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard, 2006. "The role of ecosystem valuation in environmental decision making: Hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the Elwha River," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 508-523, April.
  53. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, K. E., 2003. "Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 537-545, August.
  54. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
  55. Leonard Shabman & Kurt Stephenson, 1996. "Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 433-449.
  56. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
  57. Keith Jakee & Guang-Zhen Sun, 2006. "Is compulsory voting more democratic?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 129(1), pages 61-75, October.
  58. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1997. "Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-3), pages 123-137.
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. Dennis Gaertner, 2007. "Monopolistic Screening under Learning By Doing," SOI - Working Papers 0718, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
  2. Donja Darai & Dario Sacco & Armin Schmutzler, 2010. "Competition and innovation: an experimental investigation," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 439-460, December.
  3. Christoph Rheinberger, 2011. "A mixed logit approach to study preferences for safety on Alpine roads," Working Papers 45387, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France.
  4. J. DeShazo & Trudy Cameron & Manrique Saenz, 2009. "The Effect of Consumers’ Real-World Choice Sets on Inferences from Stated Preference Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 319-343, March.
  5. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-00443668 is not listed on IDEAS
  6. Sandra Hanslin, 2008. "The effect of trade openness on optimal government size under endogenous firm entry," SOI - Working Papers 0802, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
  7. Falkinger, Josef, 2008. "Between Agora and Shopping Mall," IZA Discussion Papers 3524, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  8. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2011. "Do People Always Pay Less Than They Say? Testbed Laboratory Experiments With IV and HG Values," Economics Papers from University Paris Dauphine 123456789/9717, Paris Dauphine University.
  9. repec:hal:cesptp:halshs-00526134 is not listed on IDEAS
  10. Dario Sacco & Armin Schmutzler, 2008. "All-Pay Auctions with Negative Prize Externalities: Theory and Experimental Evidence," SOI - Working Papers 0806, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
  11. Adrian Bruhin, 2008. "Stochastic Expected Utility and Prospect Theory in a Horse Race: A Finite Mixture Approach," SOI - Working Papers 0803, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
  12. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
  13. repec:hal:cesptp:halshs-00443668 is not listed on IDEAS
  14. Dennis Gaertner, 2007. "Why Bayes Rules: A Note on Bayesian vs. Classical Inference in Regime Switching Models," SOI - Working Papers 0719, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.

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:soz:wpaper:0715. 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: (Marita Kieser).

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.