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

The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation

  • Peter A. Groothuis
  • John C. Whitehead

The provision point mechanism mitigates free riding behavior in economic experiments. In two contingent valuation method surveys, we implement the provision point design. We ask respondents about their perceptions about the success of the provision point mechanism. One of the determinants that identifies who is likely to feel the provision point will be met is the bid itself. We find that respondents who believe that the provision point would not be met are more likely to say no to a contingent valuation dichotomous choice question. The scenario rejection that arises may result in biased willingness to pay estimates. Key Words: Provision Point Mechanism, Contingent Valuation, Willingness to Pay, Public Goods

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://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp0801.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Department of Economics, Appalachian State University in its series Working Papers with number 08-01.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:08-01
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Thelma C. Raley Hall, Boone, North Carolina 28608

Phone: 828-262-2148
Fax: 828-262-6105
Web page: http://economics.appstate.edu/

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. Peter A. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, . "Does Don't Know Mean No? Analysis of 'Don't Know' Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Working Papers 9814, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
  2. Bagnoli, Mark & McKee, Michael, 1991. "Voluntary Contribution Games: Efficient Private Provision of Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 29(2), pages 351-66, April.
  3. Messer, Kent D. & Schmit, Todd M. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2005. "Optimal Institutional Mechanisms for Funding Generic Advertising: An Experimental Analysis," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19130, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  4. J. Peter Clinch & Anthony Murphy, 1998. "Modelling winners and losers in contingent valuation of public goods : appropriate welfare measures and econometric analysis," Working Papers 199812, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
  5. 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.
  6. Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D. & Poe, Gregory L., 1997. "Voluntary Revelation Of The Demand For Public Goods Using A Provision Point Mechanism," Working Papers 7265, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
  7. Rose, Steven K. & Poe, Gregory L. & Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D. & Clark, Jeremy, 1997. "The Private Provision of Public Goods: Tests of a Provision Point Mechanism for Funding Green Power Programs," Working Papers 127850, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
  8. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  9. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), October.
  10. Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis, 2005. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to "Don’t Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
  11. David Dickinson & Dee Von Bailey, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay for Information: Experiex-post, have been developed to mitigate or eliminate the overstatement of hypothetical willingness to pay. The ex-ante approach addresses hypothetical bias i," Working Papers 04-21, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  12. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
  13. Patricia A. Champ & Nicholas E. Flores & Thomas C. Brown & PJames Chivers, 2002. "Contingent Valuation and Incentives," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 591-604.
  14. Smith, V. Kerry & Desvousges, William H. & Fisher, Ann, 1983. "Estimates of the option values for water quality improvements," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 81-86.
  15. Mark Bagnoli & Barton L. Lipman, 1989. "Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 583-601.
  16. Marks, Melanie & Croson, Rachel, 1998. "Alternative rebate rules in the provision of a threshold public good: An experimental investigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 195-220, February.
  17. Cadsby, Charles Bram & Maynes, Elizabeth, 1999. "Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 53-73, January.
  18. 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.
  19. Norwood, F. Bailey & Winn, Chris & Chung, Chanjin & Ward, Clement E., 2006. "Designing a Voluntary Beef Checkoff," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(01), April.
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:apl:wpaper:08-01. 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: (O. Ashton Morgan)

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.