Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-vote Recommendation

Carson, Richard T.; Hanemann, W. Michael; Kopp, Raymond J.; Krosnick, Jon A.; Mitchell, Robert Cameron; Presser, Stanley; Ruud, Paul A.; Smith, V. Kerry; Conaway, Michael B.; Martin, Kerry

doi:10.1162/003465398557582

Cited by 54 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Voting in the four hypothetical referenda was insensitive to payment amount, with 69-73% of participants voting yes. 4 At the 95% confidence level we cannot reject the hypothesis of no difference in voting among the four hypothetical referenda (Table 3). 5 However, in the real referenda, percent voting yes decreased monotonically as payment amount increased, from 82% at the $1 level to 24% at the $8 level (percent voting yes is significantly greater at the $1 payment level than at the other three payment levels, Table 3).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…For more detail, see our discussion paper ''Obtaining Unbiased Contingent Values: Further Tests of Entreaties to Avoid Hypothetical Bias,'' available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/value/docs/dp-01-1.pdf. referenda examples, see [4,14]. However, unlike our study, most contingent valuation studies use a wide range of payment amounts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Examining the tendency toward hypothetical bias, percentages voting yes in the hypothetical referenda were significantly greater than in the real referenda at the $3, $5, and $8 levels (Table 4). 4 To test whether a yes vote of about 70% was an invariable result for public goods with our subject population, we also ran a hypothetical referendum with 19 participants on donating $8 to a different scholarship fund, one usable at universities throughout the U.S., and observed a 47% yes vote. This extra referendum suggests sensitivity to the nature of the good in the hypothetical condition.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation

Brown

Ajzen

Hrubes

2003

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over-estimation of willingness to pay in contingent markets has been attributed largely to hypothetical bias. One promising approach for avoiding hypothetical bias is to tell respondents enough about such bias that they self-correct for it. A script designed for this purpose by Cummings and Taylor was used in hypothetical referenda that differed in payment amount. In comparisons with behavior observed in otherwise identical real payment referenda, the script worked remarkably well at higher payment levels (dropping the likelihood of a yes vote to the level obtained in separate sample real referenda), but less well at a lower payment level. The repeated success of the script at higher payment amounts is a clear sign that additional research is warranted-research that will bring us a more complete understanding of how the entreaty works. This research may need to explore its workings at the individual respondent level. r

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation

Brown

Ajzen

Hrubes

2003

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A more recent variant is "cheap talk" (Cummings and Taylor 1999) that in its softer forms closely resemble a traditional budget constraint reminder and in its more controversial harder forms can alter the perceived nature of the good offered (or the focal choice in multinomial choice questions) by conveying that other individuals regret their original response and do not subsequently pay for the good. 37 Another way to allow for uncertainty is to explicitly provide a "don't know" response category that is explicitly modeled as falling between "yes" and "no" responses (Wang 1997) instead of taking a (very) conservative view that treats any "don't know" response as "nos" (Carson et al 1998). one can try to elicit a formal probabilistic response (e.g., Li and Mattsson 1995) or an ordinal scale variant (Champ et al 1997). An alternative to asking auxiliary questions is to directly incorporate such questions into the elicitation format.…”

Section: Auxiliary Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches

Carson

Louviere

2011

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

218

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often difficult to determine what actually was done in work involving data collected with stated preference surveys because the terms used to describe various procedures have ambiguous and sometimes conflicting meanings. Further, terms used to describe data collection procedures often are confounded with terms used to describe statistical techniques. We call for the use of a common nomenclature to describe what was done in a data collection effort for stated preference studies, and take a first step at setting out such nomenclature. We only seek to improve clarity in the communication of research results and take no position here on appropriateness of particular procedures.

show abstract

“…Several alternative definitions of the WTP variable were applied: WTP as given by the respondents (with non-responses treated as "missings"); WTP with "missings" recoded to zeros (see e.g. Carson et al, 1998); logtransformed WTP (after recoding zeros to 1's); and finally log-transformed positive (non-zero) WTP values (to retain only those WTP responses which were potentially inflated due to strategic incentives). Log-transformation substantially improved the normality of the WTP distribution.…”

Section: Effects On Stated Willingness To Paymentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical incentive properties of contingent valuation questions: Do they matter in the field?

Schläpfer¹,

Bräuer²

2007

Ecological Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Green et al. (1998) [Green, D., Jacowitz, K.E., Kahneman, D., McFadden, D., 1998. Referendum contigent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20 (2), show theoretically that stated preference questions about public services can be framed in such ways that if the subjects accept the frame the payoff-maximizing behavior will be to answer truthfully. One key element of such a theoretically incentive-compatible framing is that the (hypothetical) decision rule specified in the survey instrument is understood to be a majority rule rather than the efficiency rule typically used in cost-benefit analysis. We conducted field experiments in Germany and Switzerland to test if a referendum framing as suggested by Green et al. is effective in reducing strategic misrepresentation in a contingent valuation setting. We did not find the expected effects of the framing treatments on stated willingness to pay or on individuals' (stated) beliefs about the social choice context. The results do not support hopes that a theoretically incentive compatible framing could be purposefully used to invoke the specific beliefs about the linkage between responses and policy implementation that would make stated preference questions incentive compatible. Ecological Economics, in pressEditor Cutler J. Cleveland AbstractGreen et al. [1998, Resource and Energy Economics 20, 85-116] show theoretically that stated preference questions about public services can be framed in such ways that if the subjects accept the frame the payoff-maximizing behavior will be to answer truthfully. One key element of such a theoretically incentive-compatible framing is that the (hypothetical) decision rule specified in the survey instrument is understood to be a majority rule rather than the efficiency rule typically used in cost-benefit analysis. We conducted field experiments in Germany and Switzerland to test if a referendum framing as suggested by Green et al. is effective in reducing strategic misrepresentation in a contingent valuation setting. We did not find the expected effects of the framing treatments on stated willingness to pay or on individuals' (stated) beliefs about the social choice context. The results do not support hopes that a theoretically incentive compatible framing could be purposefully used to invoke the specific beliefs about the linkage between responses and policy implementation that would make stated preference questions incentive compatible.

show abstract

Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-vote Recommendation

Abstract: Discussion papers are research materials circulated by their authors for purposes of information and discussion. They have not undergone formal peer review or the editorial treatment accorded RFF books and other publications.

Cited by 54 publications

References 6 publications

Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation

Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation

A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches

Theoretical incentive properties of contingent valuation questions: Do they matter in the field?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About