IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/teepxx/v6y2017i4p374-403.html

Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: importance of incentive compatibility

Author

Listed:
  • Ewa Zawojska
  • Mikołaj Czajkowski

Abstract

The stated preference (SP) methods use respondents’ stated choices made in hypothetical situations to infer their preferences for environmental and other public goods. These methods enable researchers to express the general public's preferences in monetary terms, and hence, to estimate the economic value of a change in the quantity or quality of the goods. However, a key question remains regarding SP methods’ validity: do the value estimates obtained from an SP study reflect respondents’ true preferences? Numerous empirical investigations have tested SP methods’ validity, but overall conclusions are mixed. We critically re-evaluate this evidence considering the issue of the necessary conditions for incentive compatibility of SP surveys. Our analysis shows that once theory-based conditions for incentive compatibility are taken into account, the available studies consistently show that the SP methods provide valid estimates of actual preferences. As a result, we argue that SP surveys must be made incentive compatible in order to observe consumers’ true preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Ewa Zawojska & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: importance of incentive compatibility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 374-403, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:teepxx:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:374-403
    DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2017.1322537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21606544.2017.1322537
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21606544.2017.1322537?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    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:taf:teepxx:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:374-403. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/teep20 .

    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.