Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment

References

1. ↵
   1. Alberini Anna,
   2. Boyle Kevin,
   3. Welsh Michael

   . 2003. “Analysis of Contingent Valuation Data with Multiple Bids and Response Options Allowing Respondents to Express Uncertainty.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45 (1): 40–62.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
2. ↵
   1. Alfnes Frode,
   2. Rickertsen Kyrre

   . 2002. “SC-X: Calibrating Stated Choice Surveys with Experimental Auction Markets.” Discussion Paper #D-5/2002, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas, Norway.
3. ↵
   1. Berrens Robert P.,
   2. Jenkins-Smith Hank,
   3. Bohara Alok K.,
   4. Silva Carol L.

   2002. “Further Investigation of Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Fair Share, Time of Contribution, and Respondent Uncertainty.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (1): 144–68.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
4. ↵
   1. Blamey Russell,
   2. Bennett Jeff

   . 2001. “Yea-saying and Validation of a Choice Model of Green Product Choice.” In The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, ed. Bennett Jeff, Blamey Russell. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
5. ↵
   1. Blomquist Glenn C.,
   2. Blumenschein Karen,
   3. Johannesson Magnus

   . 2008. “Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias using Follow-up Certainty Statements: Comparisons between Probably/Definitely and a 10-Point Certainty Scale.” Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
6. ↵
   1. Blumenschein Karen,
   2. Johannesson Magnus,
   3. Blomquist Glenn C.,
   4. Liljas Bengt,
   5. O’Conor Richard M.

   1998. “Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation.” Southern Economic Journal 65 (1): 169–77.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
7. ↵
   1. Blumenschein Karen,
   2. Blomquist Glenn C.,
   3. Johannesson Magnus,
   4. Horn Nancy,
   5. Freeman Patricia

   . 2008. “Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Economic Journal 118 (525): 114–37.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
8. ↵
   1. Cameron Trudy A.,
   2. Poe Gregory L.,
   3. Ethier Robert G.,
   4. Shulze William D.

   2002. “Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (3): 391–425.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. ↵
   1. Carlsson Fredrik,
   2. Martinsson Peter

   . 2001. “Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41 (2): 179–92.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. Champ Patricia A.,
    2. Bishop Richard C.

    2001. “Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19 (4): 383–402.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. ↵
    1. Champ Patricia A.,
    2. Bishop Richard C.,
    3. Brown Thomas C.,
    4. McCollum Daniel W.

    1997. “Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Non-use Benefits from Public Goods.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 (2): 151–62.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. ↵
    1. Cummings Ronald G.,
    2. Taylor Laura O.

    1999. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” American Economic Review 89 (3): 649–65.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
13. ↵
    1. Ethier Robert G.,
    2. Poe Gregory L.,
    3. Schulze William D.,
    4. Clark Jeremy

    . 2000. “A Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs.” Land Economics 76 (1): 54–67.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
14. ↵
    1. Hanemann W. Michael,
    2. Kriström Bengt

    . 1995. “Preference Uncertainty, Optimal Design, and Spikes.” In Current Issues in Environmental Economics, ed. Johansson Per Olov, Kriström Bengt, Maler Karl-Göran. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
15. ↵
    1. Holmes Thomas P.,
    2. Adamowicz Wiktor L.

    2003. “Attribute Based Methods.” In A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, ed. Champ Patricia A., Brown Thomas, Boyle Kevin, 171–219. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16. ↵
    1. Johannesson Magnus,
    2. Blomquist Glenn C.,
    3. Blumenschein Karen,
    4. Johansson Per-Olov,
    5. Liljas Bengt,
    6. O’Conor Richard M.

    1999. “Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 18 (1): 21–32.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
17. ↵
    1. Johannesson Magnus,
    2. Liljas Bengt,
    3. Johansson Per-Olov

    . 1998. “An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions.” Applied Economics 30 (5): 643–47.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
18. ↵
    1. Johansson-Stenman Olof,
    2. Svedsäter Henrik

    . 2007. “Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Within versus Between Subject Tests.” Working Papers in Economics 252. Göteborg: Department of Economics, Göteborg University.
19. ↵
    1. Kooten G. Cornelis van,
    2. Krcmar Emina,
    3. Bulte Erwin H.

    2001. “Preference Uncertainty in Non-market Valuation: A Fuzzy Approach.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (3): 487–500.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
20. ↵
    1. Li Chuan-Zhong,
    2. Mattsson Leif

    . 1995. “Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (2): 256–69.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. ↵
    1. List John A.,
    2. Gallet Craig A.

    2001. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence From a Meta-Analysis.” Environmental and Resource Economics 20 (3): 241–54.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. ↵
    1. List John A.,
    2. Sinha Paramita,
    3. Taylor Michael H.

    2006. “Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments.” Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 6 (2): Article 2.
23. ↵
    1. Little Joseph,
    2. Berrens Robert

    . 2004. “Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis.” Economics Bulletin 3 (6): 1–13.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Loomis John,
    2. Ekstrand Earl

    . 1998. “Alternative Approaches for Incorporating Respondent Uncertainty When Estimating Willingness to Pay: The Case of the Mexican Spotted Owl.” Ecological Economics 27 (1): 29–41.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
25. ↵
    1. Lusk Jayson L.,
    2. Schroeder T. C.

    2004. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (2): 467–82.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. ↵
    1. Murphy James J.,
    2. Geoffrey Allen P.,
    3. Stevens Thomas H.,
    4. Weatherhead Darryl

    . 2005. “A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (3): 313–25.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
27. ↵
    1. Norwood F. Bailey

    . 2005. “Can Calibration Reconcile Stated and Observed Preferences?” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 37 (1): 237–48.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Norwood F. Bailey,
    2. Lusk Jayson L.,
    3. Boyer Tracy

    . 2008. “Forecasting Hypothetical Bias: A Tale of Two Calibrations.” In Environmental Economics, Experimental Methods, ed. Cherry Todd L., Kroll Stephan, Shogren Jason F. New York: Routledge.
29. ↵
    1. Olsson Björn

    . 2005. “Accounting for Response Uncertainty in Stated Preference Methods.” Presented at the EAERE Congress, Bremen, Germany, June 23–26.
30. ↵
    1. Opaluch James J.,
    2. Segerson Kathleen

    . 1989. “Rational Roots of ‘Irrational’ Behavior: New Theories of Economic Decision-Making.” Northeastern Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 18 (2): 81–95.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Poe Gregory L.,
    2. Clark Jeremy E.,
    3. Rondeau Daniel,
    4. Schulze William D.

    2002. “Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23 (1): 105–31.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
32. ↵
    1. Poe Gregory L.,
    2. Severance-Lossin Eric K.,
    3. Welsh Michael P.

    1994. “Measuring the Difference (X – Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76 (4): 904–15.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
33. ↵
    1. Ready Richard C.,
    2. Navrud Ståle,
    3. Dubourg W. Richard

    . 2001. “How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?” Land Economics 77 (3): 315–26.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
34. ↵
    1. Taylor Laura O.,
    2. Morrison Mark D.,
    3. Boyle Kevin J.

    2007. “Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments.” Working paper, Center for Environmental and Resource Economic Policy, North Carolina State University.
35. ↵
    1. Vossler Christian A.,
    2. Ethier Robert G.,
    3. Poe Gregory L.,
    4. Welsh Michael P.

    2003. “Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test.” Southern Economic Journal 69 (4): 886–902.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
36. ↵
    1. Welsh Michael P.,
    2. Poe Gregory L.

    1998. “Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach.” Journal of Environmental Economics Management 36 (2): 170–85.

    OpenUrlCrossRef