IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare01/125758.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ethical Design of Stated Preference Questionnaires: Results from a Split-Sample Test

Author

Listed:
  • Morrison, Mark
  • Blamey, Russell K.
  • Mallawaarachchi, Thilak

Abstract

Designers of stated preference studies have placed an emphasis in recent years on ensuring that questionnaires are defensible, and that all ‘hypothetical’ elements are removed. A potential problem with this emphasis is that it can unwittingly increase the hypothetical nature of the survey as well as necessitating the use of ethically questionable statements. An alternative approach was recommended by Morrison (forthcoming) that is ethically better and potentially less susceptible to hypothetical bias. This approach has been used in several studies, with the results indicating that designing questionnaires in an ethically neutral manner does not automatically lead to poorer quality models. In this paper we present the results of a more rigorous split sample test to test the appropriateness of using this approach. Minor evidence of strategic behaviour by a small proportion of the respondents (about 7%) was identified; however the results indicate that welfare estimates were not affected by designing questionnaires in this way.

Suggested Citation

  • Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K. & Mallawaarachchi, Thilak, 2001. "Ethical Design of Stated Preference Questionnaires: Results from a Split-Sample Test," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125758, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare01:125758
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.125758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/125758/files/Mallawaarachchi1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.125758?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    2. M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
    3. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lesley, James C., 1996. "Must Contingent Valuation Surveys Cost So Much?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 79-95, July.
    4. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    5. Alan Randall, 1997. "The NOAA Panel Report: A New Beginning or the End of an Era?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1489-1494.
    6. Neill Helen R., 1995. "The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 393-397, November.
    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. Mallawaarachchi, Thilak & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 2001. "Determining the community value of peri-urban land: The significance of environmental amenity and production alternatives," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125763, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2003. "Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 59-72, January.
    2. Leslie Richardson & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2013. "Valuing Morbidity from Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparison of Revealed and Stated Preference Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 76-100.
    3. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    4. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2004. "An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 313-335, March.
    5. Aadland, David & Caplan, Arthur J., 2003. "Cheap Talk Revisited: New Evidence From Cvm," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22112, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Aadland, David & Caplan, Arthur J., 2006. "Cheap talk reconsidered: New evidence from CVM," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 562-578, August.
    7. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    8. Clive L Spash, 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    9. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    10. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    11. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    12. Hoyos, David & Riera, Pere, 2013. "Convergent validity between revealed and stated recreation demand data: Some empirical evidence from the Basque Country, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 234-248.
    13. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    14. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    15. Richard A. Hofler & John A. List, 2004. "Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 213-221.
    16. Villas-Boas, Sofia B, 2020. "Reduced Form Evidence on Belief Updating Under Asymmetric Information," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt08c456vk, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    17. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2006. "Using Continuous and Finite Mixture Models to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in a group of Outdoor Recreationalists," Working Papers 0602, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    18. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    19. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    20. Parsons, George R. & Jakus, Paul M. & Tomasi, Ted, 1999. "A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 143-157, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:aare01:125758. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.