IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v53y2024i3p478-491_6.html

Subjective perceptions about benefit and cost levels in contingent valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Hwang, Julian J.

Abstract

This paper hypothesizes that respondents in contingent valuation surveys may form different benefit and cost levels that deviate from the levels specified by the researcher. The conceptual framework investigates potential biases based on the direction of deviations. Survey data on the restoration of wetlands in Tampa Bay show that a significant portion of the respondents deviate from the benefit and cost levels presented in the scenario. Empirical results indicate that willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates are very sensitive to the perceived benefit and cost levels. Depending on the direction of the deviations, WTP estimates could fluctuate up to +61 percent and −82 percent, compared to the estimate from those who evaluate the scenario at the presented levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Hwang, Julian J., 2024. "Subjective perceptions about benefit and cost levels in contingent valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 478-491, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:478-491_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S106828052400008X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:53:y:2024:i:3:p:478-491_6. 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.