IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea08/6477.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentive Compatibility in an Attribute-Based Referendum Model

Author

Listed:
  • Racevskis, Laila A.
  • Lupi, Frank

Abstract

The manner in which WTP survey responses are elicited has received much attention in the nonmarket valuation literature because of the potential bias that may be introduced via alternate response formats. One issue of particular concern is that of incentive compatibility. Several studies have concluded that response formats that present a series of valuation questions are not incentive compatible. While the single dichotomous choice elicitation format reduces the amount of information collected, multiple-bounded elicitation formats may yield biased, unreliable results. Understanding this trade-off can help provide better information on response formats that will elicit incentive compatible responses and therefore provide realistic and policy-relevant information. This research investigates the effect of the number of multinomial choices presented to respondents in an attribute-based referendum (ABR) format on incentive compatibility of responses. Data was collected from two versions of a mail survey that used an attribute-based description of a hypothetical forest easement program in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and a referendum-style choice between the status quo and various forest easement program scenarios. The first version of the survey presented four choice scenarios to respondents while the second version presented only one choice scenario. Results suggest that the multiple-bound response format improves statistical efficiency due to the statistical significance of all estimated parameters. However, this efficiency may also overestimate WTP. The single-bounded response format displays lower statistical efficiency but may reflect more accurate preferences from respondents. Results lead to a rejection of the hypothesis that the number of choices presented to respondents has no effect on results and have implications for the reliability of nonmarket valuation information from multiple-bound response formats in attribute-based referenda models.

Suggested Citation

  • Racevskis, Laila A. & Lupi, Frank, 2008. "Incentive Compatibility in an Attribute-Based Referendum Model," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6477, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea08:6477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/6477
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Taylor, Laura O. & McKee, Michael & Laury, Susan K. & Cummings, Ronald G., 2001. "Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 61-65, April.
    2. Robert Mitchell, 2002. "On Designing Constructed Markets in Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 297-321, June.
    3. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang & John C. Whitehead, 1999. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(1), pages 186-196, February.
    5. Boxall, Peter & Rollins, Kimberly & Englin, Jeffrey, 2003. "Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during a wilderness experience," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-195, May.
    6. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    7. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    8. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    9. Cummings, Ronald G, et al, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
    10. Anthony Burton & Katherine Carson & Susan Chilton & W. Hutchinson, 2007. "Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(4), pages 513-525, December.
    11. Frank Lupi & Michael D. Kaplowitz & John P. Hoehn, 2002. "The Economic Equivalency of Drained and Restored Wetlands in Michigan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1355-1361.
    12. Thomas P. Holmes & Kevin J. Boyle, 2005. "Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    13. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    14. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    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. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2011. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 554-571, September.
    2. McCartney, Abbie & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups," Research Reports 107575, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea08:6477. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.