Valuing Ambiguity: The Case Of Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers
A split-valuation method is developed and implemented to elicit the willingness to pay to consume- or avoid consuming- a product of ambiguous quality. The split-valuation method uses experimental auction markets to separate and value the positive and negative attributes of the ambiguous good. The results show that the method can be used to successfully value a good ambiguous quality. Our application reveals that for a sample of students at a midwestern land-grant institution, the average respondent is willing to pay a premium for meat produced with the use of a genetically engineered growth enhancer that has 30% to 60% fewer calories and is 10% to 20% leaner.
Volume (Year): 18 (1993)
Issue (Month): 02 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://waeaonline.org/|
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Menkhaus, Dale J. & Borden, George W. & Whipple, Glen D. & Hoffman, Elizabeth & Field, Ray A., 1992. "An Empirical Application Of Laboratory Experimental Auctions In Marketing Research," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(01), July.
- Shin, Seung Youll & Kliebenstein, James & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F., 1992. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Safer Food Products," Staff General Research Papers 546, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Shogren, Jason F, 1990. " The Impact of Self-protection and Self-insurance on Individual Response to Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 191-204, June.
- McKee, Michael, 1989. "Intra-experimental income effects and risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 109-115, August.
- Brookshire, David S & Coursey, Don L, 1987. "Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 554-66, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:30963. 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.