Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Economies

Sadighi, Hassan; Olsen, Søren Bøye; Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark

doi:10.1007/s10640-017-0196-6

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, empirical studies provide mixed evidence on the importance of lack of consequentiality in choice‐experiment designs (Hassan et al. 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of decision rules in choice experiments on hunting and bushmeat trade

Nielsen

Jacobsen

2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Providing insight on decisions to hunt and trade bushmeat can facilitate improved management interventions that typically include enforcement, alternative employment, and donation of livestock. Conservation interventions to regulate bushmeat hunting and trade have hitherto been based on assumptions of utility-(i.e., personal benefits) maximizing behavior, which influences the types of incentives designed. However, if individuals instead strive to minimize regret, interventions may be misguided. We tested support for 3 hypotheses regarding decision rules through a choice experiment in Tanzania. We estimated models based on the assumptions of random utility maximization (RUM) and pure random regret maximization (P-RRM) and combinations thereof. One of these models had an attribute-specific decision rule and another had a class-specific decision rule. The RUM model outperformed the P-RRM model, but the attribute-specific model performed better. Allowing respondents with different decision rules and preference heterogeneity within each decision rule in a class-specific model performed best, revealing that 55% of the sample used a P-RRM decision rule. Individuals using a P-RRM decision rule responded less to enforcement, salary, and livestock donation than did individuals using the RUM decision rule. Hence, 3 common strategies, enforcement, alternative income-generating activities, and providing livestock as a substitute protein, are likely less effective in changing the behavior of more than half of respondents. Only salary elicited a large (i.e. elastic) response, and only for one RUM class. Policies to regulate the bushmeat trade based solely on the assumption of individuals maximizing utility, may fail for a significant proportion of the sample. Despite the superior performance of models that allow both RUM and P-RRM decision rules there are drawbacks that must be considered before use in the Global South, where very little is known about the social-psychology of decision making.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, empirical studies provide mixed evidence on the importance of lack of consequentiality in choice‐experiment designs (Hassan et al. 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because the goods, services, and dis-services under evaluation were private goods, the risk of free riding likely mattered less than in public-good valuation studies. Furthermore, empirical studies provide mixed evidence on the importance of lack of consequentiality in choice-experiment designs (Hassan et al 2017).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of decision rules in choice experiments on hunting and bushmeat trade

Nielsen

Jacobsen

2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many authors empirically used non-monetary payments, the most popular choice being labor time or WTW (Abramson et al, 2011;Alam, 2013;Arbiol et al, 2013;Casiwan-Launio, Shinbo & Morooka, 2011;Das & Mahanta, 2013;Gibson et al, 2016;Girma & Beyene, 2012;Gorkhali, 2009;Hung, Loomis & Thinh, 2007;Ishigu, 2019;Ninan & Sathyapalan, 2005;Notaro & Paletto, 2011;Saizan et al, 2019;Saxena, Bisht, & Singh, 2008;Schiappacasse et al, 2013;Solikin, 2017;Tilahun et al, 2015;Vasquez, 2014;& Vondolia et al, 2014). In contrast, the less popular alternatives include commodity or harvest, such as rice (Navrud & Vondolia, 2020), providing meals (Diafas et al, 2017), borrowing (Abramson et al, 2011), and income tax and reduction of government subsidy for groceries (Hassan et al, 2018).…”

Section: Alternative Payment Vehiclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative Numeraires for Measuring Welfare Changes: Review of Empirical Environmental Valuation Studies

Solikin

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines numeraire or an account unit that measures household welfare changes. Although money metric usually determines budget constraint, textbook explanations of the alternative metrics are limited. Therefore, the study aimed to fill the existing gap by systematically and qualitatively analysing previously published articles on environmental valuation in developing countries. The results showed the existence of alternative numeraires in working time, commodities, and financing. The alternative metrics are useful in the valuation of environmental goods and services in developing countries, especially those involving poor respondents and underdeveloped monetary transactions. The nonmonetary payments reduce zero bids due to the inability of subsistence people to pay in cash and help the poor express their true environmental values.

show abstract

“…2.8). Hassan et al (2018) have a thorough discussion of the choice of payment vehicle in a case where the choice was not so obvious.…”

Section: Payment Vehicle and Cost Vector Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common payment vehicles typically involve some kind of monetary transfer. Examples of payment vehicles in a utility enhancing context include income tax (Campbell et al 2014), tax on water usage (Jørgensen et al 2013), subsidy reduction (Hassan et al 2018), entrance fee (Talpur et al 2018), and in a utility decreasing context, subsidies paid to landowners (Vedel et al 2015a), donations from NGOs (Rakotonarivo et al 2017), lowering property tax (Vedel et al 2015b), salaries from alternative employment (Nielsen et al 2014), the opportunity gain of an interest free loan or labour (Kassahun and Jacobsen 2015). The choice of payment vehicle should always be guided and thoroughly tested in focus group interviews.…”

Section: Payment Vehicle and Cost Vector Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing the Questionnaire

Mariel

Hoyos

Meyerhoff

et al. 2020

SpringerBriefs in Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter outlines the essential topics for developing and testing a questionnaire for a discrete choice experiment survey. It addresses issues such as the description of the environmental good, pretesting of the survey, incentive compatibility, consequentiality or mitigation of hypothetical bias. For the latter, cheap talk scripts, opt-out reminders or an oath script are discussed. Moreover, the use of instructional choice sets, the identification of protest responses and strategic bidders are considered. Finally, issues related to the payment vehicle and the cost vector design are the subject of this section.

show abstract

Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Economies

Cited by 18 publications

References 45 publications

Effect of decision rules in choice experiments on hunting and bushmeat trade

Effect of decision rules in choice experiments on hunting and bushmeat trade

Alternative Numeraires for Measuring Welfare Changes: Review of Empirical Environmental Valuation Studies

Developing the Questionnaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About