A Consequential Contingent Valuation Referendum: Still Not Enough to Elicit True Preferences for Public Goods!

• Autorzy: Ewa Zawojska
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Whether respondents disclose their preferences truthfully in surveys that are used to assess the values of public goods remains a crucial question for the practical application of stated preference methods. The literature suggests that in order to elicit true preferences, respondents should see a valuation survey as consequential: they must believe in the actual consequences that may follow from the survey result. Drawing on recent empirical findings, we develop a model depicting the importance of the consequentiality requirement for truthful preference disclosure in a survey that evaluates a public policy project based on a referendum-format value elicitation question. First, we show that a respondent's belief that his vote may influence the outcome of the referendum plays a central role for revealing his preferences truthfully. Second, we find that the subjectively perceived probabilities of the successful provision of the public good and of the collection of the payment related to the project implementation not only need to be positive but also to be in a particular relationship with each other. This relationship varies in respondents' preferences towards risk. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Consumer preferences research; Public goods; Referendum

PL

Badanie preferencji konsumenckich; Dobra publiczne; Referendum

• Czasopismo: Ekonomia / Uniwersytet Warszawski
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 2
• Numer: nr 49
• Strony: 73--90

Twórcy

autor

Ewa Zawojska

• University of Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• Arrow, Kenneth, Robert Solow, Paul Portney, Edward Leamer, Roy Radner, and Howard Schuman. 1993. "Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation." Federal Register 58(10): 4601-4614.
• Bohm, Peter. 1972. "Estimating Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment." European Economic Review 3(2): 111-130.
• Brent, Daniel A., Lata Gangadharan, Anke Leroux, and Paul A. Raschky. 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field." Monash Economics Working Papers no. 43-14. Department of Economics, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
• Broadbent, Craig D. 2012. "Hypothetical Bias, Consequentially and Choice Experiments." Economics Bulletin 32(3): 2490-2499.
• Broadbent, Craig D., Jake B. Grandy, and Robert P. Berrens. 2010. "Testing for Hypothetical Bias in a Choice Experiment Using a Local Public Good: Riparian Forest Restoration." International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics 19(F10): 1-19.
• Burghart, Daniel R., Trudy A. Cameron, and Geoffrey R. Gerdes. 2007. "Valuing Publicly Sponsored Research Projects: Risks, Scenario Adjustments, and Inattention." Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 35(1): 77-105.
• Burrows, James, Powell Dixon, and Hiu Man Chan. 2017. "Response to Cost Prompts in Stated Preference Valuation of Environmental Goods." In: Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods. A Comprehensive Critique, eds. Daniel McFadden and Kenneth Train, 1-16. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Carson, Richard T., and Theodore Groves. 2007. "Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions." Environmental and Resource Economics 37(1): 181-210.
• Carson, Richard T., Theodore Groves, and John A. List. 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice." Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 1(1/2): 171-207.
• Carson, Richard T., and Jordan J. Louviere. 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches." Environmental and Resource Economics 49(4): 539-559.
• Champ, Patricia, Nicholas Flores, Thomas C. Brown, and James Chivers. 2002. "Contingent Valuation and Incentives." Land Economics 78(4): 591-604.
• Cummings, Ronald G., and Laura O. Taylor. 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?" Land Economics 74(2): 203-215.
• Czajkowski, Mikołaj, Christian A. Vossler, Wiktor Budziński, Aleksandra Wiśniewska, and Ewa Zawojska. 2017. "Addressing Empirical Challenges Related to the Incentive Compatibility of Stated Preference Methods." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 142: 47-63.
• Drichoutis, Andreas C., Achilleas Vassilopoulos, Jayson Lusk, and Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. 2015. Reference Dependence, Consequentiality and Social Desirability in Value Elicitation: A Study of Fair Labor Labeling. Paper presented at the 143rd Joint EAAE-AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, Naples, Italy.
• Farquharson, Robin. 1969. Theory of Voting. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Flores, Nicholas E., and Aaron Strong. 2007. "Cost Credibility and the Stated Preference Analysis of Public Goods." Resource and Energy Economics 29(3): 195-205.
• Forbes, Keldi, Peter C. Boxall, Wiktor L. Adamowicz, and Alejandro De Maio Sukic. 2015. "Recovering Pacific Rockfish at Risk: The Economic Valuation of Management Actions." Frontiers in Marine Science 2(71): 1-10.
• Groothuis, Peter A., Tanga M. Mohr, John C. Whitehead, and Kristan Cockerill. 2017. "Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount." Land Economics 93(2): 258-268.
• Herriges, Joseph, Catherine Kling, Chih-Chen Liu, and Justin Tobias. 2010. "What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?" Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59(1): 67--81.
• Hwang, Joonghyun, Daniel R. Petrolia, and Matthew G. Interis. 2014. "Valuation, Consequentiality, and Opt-Out Responses to Stated Preference Surveys." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 43(3): 471-488.
• Interis, Matthew G., and Daniel R. Petrolia. 2014. "The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary- and Multinomial-Choice Surveys." Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39(2): 201-216.
• Johnston, Robert J., Kevin J. Boyle, Wiktor L. Adamowicz, Jeff Bennett, Roy Brouwer, Trudy A. Cameron, W. Michael Hanemann, Nick Hanley, Mandy Ryan, Riccardo Scarpa, Roger Tourangeau, and Christian A. Vossler. 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies." Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4(2): 319-405.
• Krupnick, Alan, and Wiktor L. Adamowicz. 2007. "Supporting Questions in Stated Choice Studies." In: Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies, ed. Barbara J. Kanninen, 43-65. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Landry, Craig E., and John A. List. 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(2): 420-429.
• Leggett, Christopher G., Naomi S. Kleckner, Kevin J. Boyle, John W. Dufield, and Robert C. Mitchell. 2003. "Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews." Land Economics 79(4): 561-575.
• Li, Xiaogu, Kimberly L. Jensen, Christopher D. Clark, and Dayton M. Lambert. 2015. Scale Heterogeneity, Consequentiality, and Willingness-to-Pay for Public Goods: The Case of Beef Choices. Paper presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and Western Agricultural Economics Association Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, CA.
• List, John A., and Craig A. Gallet. 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?" Environmental and Resource Economics 20(3): 241-254.
• Little, Joseph, Craig D. Broadbent, Robert P. Berrens. 2012. "Meta-Analysis of the Probability of Disparity between Actual and Hypothetical Valuation Responses: Extension and Preliminary New Results." Western Economics Forum 11(1): 1--12.
• MacMillan, Douglas. 2004. Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay for Environmental Outputs: Why Are They Different? A Report to SEERAD. University of Aberdeen. Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
• Mitani, Yohei, and Nicholas E. Flores. 2012. Robustness Tests of Incentive Compatible Referenda: Consequential Probability, Group Size, and Value-cost Difference. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, June 27-30, Prague, Czech Rebuplic.
• Mitani, Yohei, and Nicholas E. Flores. 2014. "Hypothetical Bias Reconsidered: Payment and Provision Uncertainties in a Threshold Provision Mechanism." Environmental and Resource Economics 59(3), 433-454.
• Mitchell, Robert C., and Richard T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
• Murphy, James J., P. Geoffrey Allen, Thomas H. Stevens, and Darryl Weatherhead. 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation". Environmental and Resource Economics 30(3): 313-325.
• Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., and Erik Schokkaert. 2003. "Identifying the Warm Glow Effect in Contingent Valuation." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(2), 231-245.
• Oehlmann, Malte, and Jürgen Meyerhoff. 2017. "Stated Preferences Towards Renewable Energy Alternatives in Germany - Do the Consequentiality of the Survey and Trust in Institutions Matter?" Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(1): 1-16.
• Schwarz, Norbert. 1997. "Cognition, Communication, and Survey Measurement: Some Implications for Contingent Valuation Surveys." In: Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Good, eds. Raymond J. Kopp, Werner W. Pommerehne, and Norbert Schwarz, 165-188. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Strong, Aaron, and Nicholas E. Flores. 2008. "Estimating the Economic Benefits of Acidic Rock Drainage Clean Up Using Cost Shares." Ecological Economics 65(2): 348-355.
• von Neumann, John, and Oskar Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Vossler, Christian A., Maurice Doyon, and Daniel Rondeau. 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments." American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4(4): 145-171.
• Vossler, Christian A., J. Scott Holladay. 2016. Alternative Value Elicitation Formats in Contingent Valuation: A New Hope. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, June 22-25, Zurich, Switzerland.
• Vossler, Christian A., and Michael McKee. 2006. "Induced-Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms." Environmental and Resource Economics 35(2), 137-168.
• Vossler, Christian A., Sharon B. Watson. 2013. "Understanding the Consequences of Consequentiality: Testing the Validity of Stated Preferences in the Field." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 86: 137-147.
• Zawojska, Ewa, Anna Bartczak, and Mikolaj Czajkowski. 2018. "Disentangling the Effects of Policy and Payment Consequentiality and Risk Attitudes on Stated Preferences." WNE Working Papers no. (1)260. Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
• Zawojska, Ewa, and Mikołaj Czajkowski. 2017. "Re-examining Empirical Evidence on Stated Preferences: Importance of Incentive Compatibility." Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(4): 374-403.

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1515/ceej-2017-0012