IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v38y2009i02p271-280_00.html

The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Groothuis, Peter A.
  • Whitehead, John C.

Abstract

The provision point mechanism mitigates free-riding behavior in economic experiments. In two contingent valuation method surveys, we implement the provision point design. We ask respondents for their perceptions about the success of the provision point mechanism. We find that respondents who believe that the provision point would not be met are more likely to say no to a contingent valuation dichotomous choice question. The scenario rejection that arises may result in biased willingness-to-pay estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Groothuis, Peter A. & Whitehead, John C., 2009. "The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 271-280, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:38:y:2009:i:02:p:271-280_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500003257/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gabriela Mundaca, 2024. "Economic valuation of environmental and health impacts from mining: the case of Peru," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 2415-2441, January.
    2. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2015. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    3. Daniel Franco & Luca Luiselli, 2013. "A procedure to analyse the strategic outliers and the multiple motivations in a contingent valuation," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(3), pages 246-266, February.
    4. O. Ashton Morgan & William L.Huth & Paul Hindsley, 2017. "Examining the Perceptions and Effects of Survey Consequentiality Across Population Subgroups," Working Papers 17-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    5. Franco, Daniel & Luiselli, Luca, 2013. "A procedure to analyse the strategic outliers and the multiple motivations in a contingent valuation: a case study for a concrete policy purpose," MPRA Paper 66498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Roxana Leitold & Javier Revilla Diez & Van Tran, 2020. "Are we expecting too much from the private sector in flood adaptation? Scenario-based field experiments with small- and medium-sized firms in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 359-378, November.
    7. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    8. Pamela Wicker & John C Whitehead & Daniel S Mason & Bruce K Johnson, 2017. "Public support for hosting the Olympic Summer Games in Germany: The CVM approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(15), pages 3597-3614, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:38:y:2009:i:02:p:271-280_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.