IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Actual averting expenditure versus stated willingness to pay

Listed author(s):
  • Pei-Ing Wu
  • Chu-Li Huang
Registered author(s):

    The purpose of this study is to perform a complete comparison of actual averting expenditure and stated willingness to pay measures, and to determine if the averting expenditure is a lower bound of the willingness to pay measured from contingent valuation experiment as suggested by literature. In addition to the single value comparison, Bootstrap, Krinsky and Robb, Jackknife, and Cameron are four simulation methods used to calculate confidence intervals for response function. Sample sizes of 100, 200, and 1000 are simulated 100 and 200 times respectively. A set of data with 540 households from a contingent policy referendum survey is employed for our purpose. Under a specific level of BOD improvement, a one-to-one single mean value comparison of the actual averting expenditure is greater than the mean willingness to pay from utility difference model. The empirical results are consistent with the theoretical expectation for expenditure difference that averting expenditure is a lower bound of willingness to pay generated from the contingent valuation method. A confidence interval, which contains the true mean willingness to pay at least 90% of the times, includes the actual averting expenditure as a lower bound of the mean willingness to pay as theory predicts.

    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:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.

    Volume (Year): 33 (2001)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 277-283

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:33:y:2001:i:2:p:277-283
    DOI: 10.1080/00036840122947
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:33:y:2001:i:2:p:277-283. 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: (Chris Longhurst)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.