IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cudawp/7245.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparison Of Hypothetical Phone And Mail Contingent Valuation Responses For Green Pricing Electricity Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Ethier, Robert G.
  • Poe, Gregory L.
  • Schulze, William D.
  • Clark, Jeremy

Abstract

To date, much of the policy and research debate on contingent valuation mode effects has relied on experiences drawn from other research disciplines. This study provides the first contingent valuation phone-mail comparison that meets current standards for response rates, draws from a general population, is relevant to the valuation of general environmental goods, and allows comparisons with actual sign-ups. Consistent with previous research in other disciplines, social desirability bias is found in responses to subjective questions --thus leading to more environmentally favorable responses on the phone. However, this effect does not carry over to hypothetical participation decisions. Hypothetical bias is found in both modes. Yet, application of calibration methods using debriefing questions provided nearly identical values across modes. As such, neither mode appears to dominate from the perspective of providing more valid estimates of actual participation decisions. The selection of survey mode must be based on other criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Ethier, Robert G. & Poe, Gregory L. & Schulze, William D. & Clark, Jeremy, 1997. "A Comparison Of Hypothetical Phone And Mail Contingent Valuation Responses For Green Pricing Electricity Programs," Working Papers 7245, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:cudawp:7245
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.7245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7245/files/wp970025.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.7245?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rondeau, Daniel & D. Schulze, William & Poe, Gregory L., 1999. "Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 455-470, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Kalle Seip & Jon Strand, 1992. "Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 91-106, January.
    4. Poe, Gregory L. & Clark, Jeremy & Schulze, William D., 1997. "Can Hypothetical, Questions Predict Actual, Participation In Public Programs? A Field Validity Test Using A Provision Point Mechanism," Working Papers 7264, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    5. Edward Balistreri & Gary McClelland & Gregory Poe & William Schulze, 2001. "Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 275-292, March.
    6. Rose, Steven K. & Clark, Jeremy & Poe, Gregory L. & Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D., 2002. "The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 131-155, February.
    7. John B. Loomis, 1987. "Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimates to Aggregate Benefit Estimates: Current Practices and Proposed Solutions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(4), pages 396-402.
    8. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1998. "Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison," Chapters, in: Melinda Acutt & Pamela Mason (ed.), Environmental Valuation, Economic Policy and Sustainability, chapter 3, pages 35-50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Bagnoli, Mark & McKee, Michael, 1991. "Voluntary Contribution Games: Efficient Private Provision of Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 29(2), pages 351-366, April.
    10. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    11. Steven F. Edwards & Glen D. Anderson, 1987. "Overlooked Biases in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Some Considerations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(2), pages 168-178.
    12. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    13. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    14. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    2. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    3. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-233, March.
    4. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    5. Rose, Steven K. & Clark, Jeremy & Poe, Gregory L. & Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D., 2002. "The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 131-155, February.
    6. Spencer, Michael A. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Miller, Christopher J., 1998. "Valuing Water Quality Monitoring: A Contingent Valuation Experiment Involving Hypothetical and Real Payments," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 28-42, April.
    7. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    8. Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Bohara, Alok K. & Silva, Carol L., 2002. "Further Investigation of Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Fair Share, Time of Contribution, and Respondent Uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 144-168, July.
    9. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    10. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    11. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2018. "Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?," Cahiers de recherche 18-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    12. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    13. Douglas Macmillan & Trevor Smart & Andrew Thorburn, 1999. "A Field Experiment Involving Cash and Hypothetical Charitable Donations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 399-412, October.
    14. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    15. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    16. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H. & Weatherhead, Darryl, 2004. "Is Cheap Talk Effective At Eliminating Hypothetical Bias In A Provision," Working Paper Series 14510, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    17. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    18. James Murphy & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 327-343, March.
    19. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    JEL classification:

    • Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply; Prices

    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:cudawp:7245. 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/dacorus.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.