IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v72y1996i2p152-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas C. Brown
  • Patricia A. Champ
  • Richard C. Bishop
  • Daniel W. McCollum

Abstract

Several contingent valuation studies have found that the open-ended format yields lower estimates of willingness to pay (WTP) than does the closed-ended, or dichotomous choice, format. In this study, WTP for a public environmental good was estimated under four conditions: actual payment in response to open-ended and closed-ended requests, and hypothetical payment in response to open-ended and closed-ended requests. The experimental results, showing that the response format mattered far more for hypothetical than for actual payments, support conclusions about the reasons that the dichotomous choice format yields larger estimates of hypothetical WTP, conclusions that hinge on the hypothetical nature of contingent valuation.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:2:p:152-166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146963
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search 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:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:2:p:152-166. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.