Incentive Compatibility and the Consequences when it is Missing: Experiments with Water Quality Credits Purchase

References

1. 1. Adamowicz, Wiktor,
   2. Peter Boxall,
   3. Michael Williams, and
   4. Jordan Louviere

   , “Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation,” American journal of agricultural economics, 1998, 80 (1), 64–75.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
2. 1. Artis, Manuel,
   2. Mercedes Ayuso, and
   3. Montserrat Guillén

   , “Detection of automobile insurance fraud with discrete choice models and misclassified claims,” Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2002, 69 (3), 325–340.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
3. 1. Blasch, Julia and
   2. Mehdi Farsi

   , “Context effects and heterogeneity in voluntary carbon offsetting-a choice experiment in Switzerland,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2014, 3 (1), 1–24.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Boxall, Peter,
   2. Wiktor L Adamowicz, and
   3. Amanda Moon

   , “Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement*,” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2009, 53 (4), 503–519.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. 1. Carson, Richard T and
   2. Theodore Groves

   , “Incentive and informational properties of preference questions,” Environmental and resource economics, 2007, 37 (1), 181–210.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
6. 1. Carson, Richard T,
   2. Theodore Groves and
   3. John A List

   , “Consequentially: A theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice,” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2014, 1 (1), 171–207.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
7. 1. Day, Brett,
   2. Ian J Bateman,
   3. Richard T Carson,
   4. Diane Dupont,
   5. Jordan J Louviere,
   6. Sanae Morimoto,
   7. Riccardo Scarpa, and
   8. Paul Wang

   , “Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2012, 63 (1), 73–91.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. 1. DeShazo, JR and
   2. German Fermo

   , “Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency,” Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 2002, 44 (1), 123–143.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. 1. Esponda, Ignacio and
   2. Emanuel Vespa

   , “Hypothetical thinking and information extraction in the laboratory,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2014, 6 (4), 180–202.

   OpenUrl
10. 1. Hanemann, W Michael

    , “Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses,” American journal of agricultural economics, 1984, 66 (3), 332–341.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. 1. Hausman, Jerry A,
    2. Jason Abrevaya, and
    3. Fiona M Scott-Morton

    , “Misclassification of the dependent variable in a discrete-response setting,” Journal of Econometrics, 1998, 87 (2), 239–269.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. 1. Herriges, Joseph,
    2. Catherine Kling,
    3. Chih-Chen Liu, and
    4. Justin Tobias

    , “What are the consequences of consequentiality?,” Journal of environmental economics and management, 2010, 59 (1), 67–81.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
13. 1. Holmes, Thomas P and
    2. Kevin J Boyle

    , “Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions,” Land Economics, 2005, 81 (1), 114–126.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
14. 1. Holmes, Thomas P,
    2. Wiktor L Adamowicz, and
    3. Fredrik Carlsson

    , “Choice experiments,” in “A primer on nonmarket valuation,” Springer, 2017, pp. 133–186.
15. 1. Holt, Charles A

    , “Preference reversals and the independence axiom,” The American Economic Review, 1986, 76 (3), 508–515.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
16. 1. Holt, Charles A and
    2. Susan K Laury

    , “Risk aversion and incentive effects,” American economic review, 2002, 92 (5), 1644–1655.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
17. 1. Horowitz, John K

    , “The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism is not necessarily incentive compatible, even for non-random goods,” Economics Letters, 2006, 93 (1), 6–11.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
18. 1. Hwang, Joonghyun,
    2. Daniel R Petrolia, and
    3. Matthew G Interis

    , “Valuation, Consequentially, and Opt-Out Responses to Stated Preference Surveys,” Forthcoming, Agricultural & Resource Economics Review, 2014.
19. 1. Interis, Matthew,
    2. Chang Xu,
    3. Daniel Petrolia, and
    4. Kalyn Coatney

    , “Examining unconditional preference revelation in choice experiments: a voting game approach,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2016, 5 (1), 125–142.

    OpenUrl
20. 1. Interis, Matthew G and
    2. Daniel R Petrolia

    , “The effects of consequentially in binaryand multinomial-choice surveys,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2014, pp. 201–216.
21. 1. Johnston, Robert J,
    2. Kevin J Boyle,
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz,
    4. Jeff Bennett,
    5. Roy Brouwer,
    6. Trudy Ann Cameron,
    7. W Michael Hanemann,
    8. Nick Hanley,
    9. Mandy Ryan,
    10. Riccardo Scarpa et al

    ., “Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies,” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2017, 4 (2), 319–405.

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Karni, Edi and
    2. Zvi Safra

    , “" Preference reversal" and the observability of preferences by experimental methods,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1987, pp. 6756–85.
23. 1. Kawai, Kei and
    2. Yasutora Watanabe

    , “Inferring strategic voting,” The American Economic Review, 2013, 103 (2), 624–662.

    OpenUrl
24. 1. Liu, Pengfei and
    2. Stephen K. Swallow

    , “Integrating cobenefits produced with water quality BMPs into credits markets: Conceptualization and experimental illustration for EPRI’s Ohio River Basin trading,” Water Resources Research, 2016, pp. n/a-n/a.
25. 1. Liu, Pengfei,
    2. Lingling Hou,
    3. Dongqing Li,
    4. Shi Min, and
    5. Yueying Mu

    , “Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders,” Journal of Agricultural Economics 2020.
26. 1. Louviere, Jordan J,
    2. David A Hensher, and
    3. Joffre D Swait

    , Stated choice methods: analysis and applications Cambridge University Press, 2000.
27. 1. Mahajan, Aprajit

    , “Identification and estimation of regression models with misdassification,” Econometrica, 2006, 74 (3), 631–665.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
28. 1. McFadden, Daniel

    , Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, New York: New York: Academic Press,
29. 1. Meyerhoff, Jurgen,
    2. Malte Oehlmann, and
    3. Priska Weller

    , “The influence of design dimensions on stated choices in an environmental context,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 2014, pp. 1–23.
30. 1. Mitani, Yohei and
    2. Nicholas E Flores

    , “Hypothetical bias reconsidered: Payment and provision uncertainties in a threshold provision mechanism,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 2014, 59 (3), 433–454.

    OpenUrl
31. 1. Myagkov, Mikhail and
    2. Charles R Plott

    , “Exchange economies and loss exposure: Experiments exploring prospect theory and competitive equilibria in market environments,” The American Economic Review, 1997, pp. 801–828.
32. 1. Myerson, Roger B and
    2. Robert J Weber

    , “A Theory of Voting Equilibria.,” American Political Science Review, 1993, 87 (01), 102–114.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
33. 1. Petrolia, Daniel R and
    2. Matthew G Interis

    , “Should we be using repeated-choice surveys to value public goods?,” Newsletter of the Association of Environmental & Resource Economists (AERE), 2013, 33 (2), 19–25.

    OpenUrl
34. 1. Vossler, Christian A and
    2. Mary F Evans

    , “Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2009, 58 (3), 338–345.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
35. 1. Vossler, Christian A,
    2. Maurice Doyon, and
    3. Daniel Rondeau

    , “Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2012, 4 (4), 145–171.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
36. 1. Wakker, Peter

    , “Message to referees who want to embark on yet another discussion of the random-lottery incentive system for individual choice.,” http://people.few.eur.nl/wakker/miscella/debates/randomlinc.htm, 2007.
37. 1. Zawojska, Ewa and
    2. Mikolaj Czajkowski

    , “Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: importance of incentive compatibility,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2017, 6 (4), 374–403.

    OpenUrl
38. 1. Zhang, Jing and
    2. Wiktor L Adamowicz

    , “Unraveling the choice format effect: A context- dependent random utility model,” Land Economics, 2011, 87 (4), 730–743.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text