IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2011i6p1101-1108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distal order effects in stated preference surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Cai, Beilei
  • Cameron, Trudy Ann
  • Gerdes, Geoffrey R.

Abstract

Stated preference researchers have previously demonstrated that a good's placement among a sequence of goods in a set of valuation questions (i.e. proximal order effects) can have a substantial impact on people's valuations of these different goods. However, the economic consequences of potential order effects stemming from other questions in a survey, prior to the valuation tasks, have received surprisingly little attention. Using an online climate change survey, we identify order effects created by prior attitude-elicitation questions, and we assess the potential impact of these distal order effects on willingness to pay (WTP) estimates for stylized climate change policies. We find that the order used in prior questions may change people's opinions toward various attributes of the good to be valued, and thereby change WTP by a substantial amount. This paper emphasizes the significance of order effects stemming from preliminary survey questions, and supports a call for diligence in the random ordering of all potentially influential preliminary information in stated preference surveys to minimize inadvertent effects from any single arbitrary ordering.

Suggested Citation

  • Cai, Beilei & Cameron, Trudy Ann & Gerdes, Geoffrey R., 2011. "Distal order effects in stated preference surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1101-1108, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:6:p:1101-1108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(11)00004-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    2. Jason Kinnell & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Donald J. Epp & JaAnn Fisher & James S. Shortle, 2002. "Perceptions and Values for Preventing Ecosystem Change: Pennsylvania Duck Hunters and the Prairie Pothole Region," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 228-244.
    3. Kelly, David L. & Kolstad, Charles D. & Mitchell, Glenn T., 2005. "Adjustment costs from environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 468-495, November.
    4. Bosello, Francesco & Roson, Roberto & Tol, Richard S.J., 2006. "Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: Human health," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 579-591, June.
    5. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    6. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    7. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
    8. Stewart, Jennifer M. & O'Shea, Eamon & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2002. "Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 585-599, July.
    9. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    10. Jaeseung Lee & Trudy Cameron, 2008. "Popular Support for Climate Change Mitigation: Evidence from a General Population Mail Survey," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 223-248, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Knut Veisten & Hans Hoen & Jon Strand, 2004. "Sequencing and the Adding-up Property in Contingent Valuation of Endangered Species: Are Contingent Non-Use Values Economic Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(4), pages 419-433, December.
    13. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    14. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
    15. Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 80-99, July.
    16. Beilei Cai & Trudy Cameron & Geoffrey Gerdes, 2010. "Distributional Preferences and the Incidence of Costs and Benefits in Climate Change Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 429-458, August.
    17. Payne, John W & Schkade, David A. & Desvousges, William H. & Aultman, Chris, 2000. "Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 95-115, July.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:ecoser:v:24:y:2017:i:c:p:58-67 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    3. Marcelo Lima, 2017. "Survey sponsor effects on the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions," GRI Working Papers 272, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    4. repec:eee:ecoser:v:10:y:2014:i:c:p:61-78 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:6:p:1101-1108. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.