IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

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

Listed author(s):
  • Morrison, Mark
  • Blamey, Russell K.
  • Mallawaarachchi, Thilak

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.

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: http://purl.umn.edu/125758
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide with number 125758.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Jan 2001
Handle: RePEc:ags:aare01:125758
Contact details of provider: Postal:
AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200

Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  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. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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:ags:aare01:125758. 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)

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.