IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0508.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What do respondents bring into contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Vondolia, Godwin K.

    () (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

Abstract

In the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), both the goods being valued and the payment vehicles used to value them are mostly hypothetical. However, although numerous studies have examined the impact of experience with the good on the willingness to pay, less attention has been given to experience with the payment vehicles. This paper examines how experience with payment vehicles influences responses to a CV scenario on the maintenance of irrigation canals. Specifically, the paper uses a split-sample survey to investigate the effects of experience with monetary and labour payment vehicles on the acceptance of a CV scenario and protest bids. Using convergent validity tests, we found that experience acquired from using both monetary and labour payment vehicles reduces the asymmetries in acceptance rates. These findings suggest that experience with payment vehicles reduces time/money response asymmetries in the CVM.

Suggested Citation

  • Vondolia, Godwin K., 2011. "What do respondents bring into contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Working Papers in Economics 508, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0508
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/25682
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whittington, Dale, 1998. "Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-30, January.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 161-181, September.
    3. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    4. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    5. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2008. "Does it matter when a power outage occurs? -- A choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to avoid power outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1232-1245, May.
    6. Barton, David N. & Bergland, Olvar, 2010. "Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an ‘individual status quo’ modelling of farm specific water scarcity," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(03), pages 321-340, June.
    7. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    8. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    9. Young-Sook Eom & Douglas Larson, 2006. "Valuing housework time from willingness to spend time and money for environmental quality improvements," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 205-227, September.
    10. John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
    11. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus, 2009. "Time is not money," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 96-102, October.
    12. Jacinto Braga & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 55-89, September.
    13. Yoder, Jonathan & Hossain, Ishrat & Epplin, Francis & Doye, Damona, 2008. "Contract duration and the division of labor in agricultural land leases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 714-733, March.
    14. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2009. "The Payment Vehicle Used in CV Studies of Environmental Goods Does Matter," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(3), December.
    15. Brown, Thomas C. & Ajzen, Icek & Hrubes, Daniel, 2003. "Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 353-361, September.
    16. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2008. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9787111235767.
    17. Le Trong Hung & John B. Loomis & Vu Tien Thinh, 2007. "Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 173-185.
    18. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    19. Kniivila, Matleena, 2006. "Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 530-539, October.
    20. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    21. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    22. David Bjornstad & Ronald Cummings & Laura Osborne, 1997. "A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 207-221, October.
    23. Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C. & Hoban Thomas J. & Clifford William B., 1995. "Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users, and Non-users," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 238-251, September.
    24. David Layton & S. Lee, 2006. "Embracing Model Uncertainty: Strategies for Response Pooling and Model Averaging," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 51-85, May.
    25. Shyamsundar, Priya & Kramer, Randall A., 1996. "Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-144, September.
    26. Whitehead, John C., 2005. "Combining willingness to pay and behavior data with limited information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 143-155, June.
    27. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
    28. Holden, Stein T. & Shiferaw, Bekele & Wik, Mette, 1998. "Poverty, market imperfections and time preferences: of relevance for environmental policy?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(01), pages 105-130, February.
    29. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    30. Gunnar Köhlin & Gregory S. Amacher, 2005. "Welfare Implications of Community Forest Plantations in Developing Countries: The Orissa Social Forestry Project," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 855-869.
    31. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    32. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    33. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1996. "Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 450-461.
    34. Knut Veisten & Ståle Navrud, 2006. "Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(7), pages 735-756.
    35. Swallow, B. M. & Woudyalew, M., 1994. "Evaluating willingness to contribute to a local public good: Application of contingent valuation to tsetse control in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 153-161, November.
    36. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, May.
    37. Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 1999. "Estimating the Benefits of Agri-environmental Policy: Econometric Issues in Open-ended Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 23-43.
    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. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Nguyen Minh Duc & Rehl, Antonia & Siepmann, Ute & Pham Van Dinh, 2017. "Labour as a utility measure reconsidered," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 03-2017, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    2. Pondorfer, Andreas & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Eliciting preferences for public goods in non-monetized communities: Accounting for preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 2010, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    3. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    4. repec:taf:jenpmg:v:60:y:2017:i:2:p:282-308 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:eee:ecolec:v:140:y:2017:i:c:p:157-165 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:eee:ecoser:v:22:y:2016:i:pb:p:297-308 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    contingent valuation; payment vehicles; numéraires; experience;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    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:hhs:gunwpe:0508. 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: (Marie Andersson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.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.