Embedding a Field Experiment in Contingent Valuation to Measure Context-Dependent Risk Preferences: Does Prospect Theory Explain Individual Responses for Wildfire Risk?
This paper contributes towards the development of an empirical approach applicable to contingent valuation to accommodate non-expected utility risk preferences. Combining elicitation approaches used in field experiments with contingent valuation, we embed an experimental design that systematically varies probabilities and losses across a survey sample in a willingness to pay elicitation format. We apply the proposed elicitation and estimation approaches to estimate the risk preferences of a representative homeowner who faces probabilistic wildfire risks and an investment option that reduces losses due to wildfire. Based on prospect theory, we estimate parameters of probability weighting, risk preferences and use individual characteristics as covariates for these parameters and as utility shifters. We find that risk preferences are consistent with prospect theory. We find that probability weighting may offer an explanation for respondents’ observed under investment in measures to reduce losses due to wildfire.
|Date of creation:||May 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Mail Stop 030, Reno, NV 89557-0207|
Phone: (775) 784-6450
Fax: (775) 784-4728
Web page: http://www.business.unr.edu/econ/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- John D. Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2007.
"Noise and Bias in Eliciting Preferences,"
Kiel Working Papers
1386, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Hey, John Denis & Morone, Andrea & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2007. "Noise and bias in eliciting preferences," Kiel Working Papers 1386, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
- John D Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2007. "Noise and Bias in Eliciting Preferences," Discussion Papers 07/04, Department of Economics, University of York.
- Andrea M. Leiter & Gerald J. Pruckner, .
"Proportionality of willingness to pay to small changes in risk - The impact of attitudinal factors in scope tests,"
2007-30, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
- Andrea Leiter & Gerald Pruckner, 2009. "Proportionality of Willingness to Pay to Small Changes in Risk: The Impact of Attitudinal Factors in Scope Tests," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 169-186, February.
- repec:ags:aaea10:61867 is not listed on IDEAS
- Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
- David M. Bruner, 2009.
"Changing the Probability versus Changing the Reward,"
09-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- David Bruner, 2009. "Changing the probability versus changing the reward," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 367-385, December.
- Wilcox, Nathaniel, 2007.
"Stochastically more risk averse: A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk,"
11851, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
- Mary Riddel & W. Shaw, 2006. "A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 131-150, March.
- Nguyen, Quang & Leung, PingSun, 2009. "Do Fishermen Have Different Attitudes Toward Risk? An Application of Prospect Theory to the Study of Vietnamese Fishermen," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(3), December.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Shafran, Aric P., 2008. "Risk externalities and the problem of wildfire risk," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 488-495, September.
- Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
- Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2009. "Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 133-158, June.
- Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2004. "Is Probability Weighting Sensitive to the Magnitude of Consequences? An Experimental Investigation on Losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 217-235, 05.
- Mariam Lankoande & Jonathan Yoder, 2006.
"An Econometric Model of Wildfire Suppression Productivity,"
2006-10, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
- Jonathan Yoder & Mariam Lankoande, 2006. "An Econometric Model of Wildfire Suppression Productivity," Working Papers 2006-10, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
- Jindapon, Paan & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2008. "Option price without expected utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(3), pages 408-410, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:unr:wpaper:10-003. 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: (Mehmet Tosun)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.