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

[1]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.ArrowKennethRobertSolowPaulPortneyEdwardLeamerRoyRadnerHowardSchuman1993“Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.”Federal Register581046014614Search in Google Scholar

[2]Bohm, Peter. 1972. “Estimating Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment.” European Economic Review 3(2): 111–130.10.1016/0014-2921(72)90001-3BohmPeter1972“Estimating Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment.”European Economic Review32111130Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[3]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.BrentDaniel A.LataGangadharanAnkeLerouxPaulA. Raschky2014“Putting One’s Money Where One’s Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field.”Monash Economics Working Papers no. 43–14Department of Economics, Monash UniversityVictoria, AustraliaSearch in Google Scholar

[4]Broadbent, Craig D. 2012. “Hypothetical Bias, Consequentially and Choice Experiments.” Economics Bulletin 32(3): 2490–2499.BroadbentCraig D.2012“Hypothetical Bias, Consequentially and Choice Experiments.”Economics Bulletin32324902499Search in Google Scholar

[5]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.BroadbentCraig D.JakeB. GrandyRobertP. Berrens2010“Testing for Hypothetical Bias in a Choice Experiment Using a Local Public Good: Riparian Forest Restoration.”International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics19F10119Search in Google Scholar

[6]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): 77–105.10.1007/s11166-007-9018-5BurghartDaniel R.TrudyA. CameronGeoffreyR. Gerdes2007“Valuing Publicly Sponsored Research Projects: Risks, Scenario Adjustments, and Inattention.”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty35177105Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[7]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.BurrowsJamesPowellDixonHiuMan Chan2017“Response to Cost Prompts in Stated Preference Valuation of Environmental Goods.”Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods. A Comprehensive CritiqueDanielMcFaddenKennethTrain116Northampton, MAEdward Elgar Publishing10.4337/9781786434692.00007Search in Google Scholar

[8]Carson, Richard T., and Theodore Groves. 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37(1): 181–210.10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5CarsonRichard T.TheodoreGroves2007“Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.”Environmental and Resource Economics371181210Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[9]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): 171–207.10.1086/676450CarsonRichard T.TheodoreGrovesJohnA. List2014“Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice.”Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists11/2171207Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[10]Carson, Richard T., and Jordan J. Louviere. 2011. “A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches.” Environmental and Resource Economics 49(4): 539–559.10.1007/s10640-010-9450-xCarsonRichard T.JordanJ. Louviere2011“A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches.”Environmental and Resource Economics494539559Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[11]Champ, Patricia, Nicholas Flores, Thomas C. Brown, and James Chivers. 2002. “Contingent Valuation and Incentives.” Land Economics 78(4): 591–604.10.2307/3146855ChampPatriciaNicholasFloresThomasC. BrownJamesChivers2002“Contingent Valuation and Incentives.”Land Economics784591604Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[12]Cummings, Ronald G., and Laura O. Taylor. 1998. “Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?” Land Economics 74(2): 203–215.10.2307/3147051CummingsRonald G.LauraO. Taylor1998“Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?”Land Economics742203215Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[13]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: 47–63.10.1016/j.jebo.2017.07.023CzajkowskiMikołajChristianA. VosslerWiktorBudzińskiAleksandraWiśniewskaEwaZawojska2017“Addressing Empirical Challenges Related to the Incentive Compatibility of Stated Preference Methods.”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization1424763Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[14]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.DrichoutisAndreas C.AchilleasVassilopoulosJaysonLuskRodolfoM. Nayga, Jr.2015Reference Dependence, Consequentiality and Social Desirability in Value Elicitation: A Study of Fair Labor Labeling.Paper presented at the 143rd Joint EAAE-AAEA SeminarMarch 25–27Naples, ItalySearch in Google Scholar

[15]Farquharson, Robin. 1969. Theory of Voting. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.FarquharsonRobin1969Theory of Voting.New Haven, CTYale University PressSearch in Google Scholar

[16]Flores, Nicholas E., and Aaron Strong. 2007. “Cost Credibility and the Stated Preference Analysis of Public Goods.” Resource and Energy Economics 29(3): 195–205.10.1016/j.reseneeco.2006.09.001FloresNicholas E.AaronStrong2007“Cost Credibility and the Stated Preference Analysis of Public Goods.”Resource and Energy Economics293195205Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[17]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.ForbesKeldiPeterC. BoxallWiktorL. AdamowiczAlejandro De MaioSukic2015“Recovering Pacific Rockfish at Risk: The Economic Valuation of Management Actions.”Frontiers in Marine Science27111010.3389/fmars.2015.00071Search in Google Scholar

[18]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): 258–268.10.3368/le.93.2.258GroothuisPeter A.TangaM. MohrJohnC. WhiteheadKristanCockerill2017“Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount.”Land Economics932258268Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[19]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-–81.10.1016/j.jeem.2009.03.004HerrigesJosephCatherineKlingChih-ChenLiuJustinTobias2010“What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management5916781Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[20]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): 471–488.10.1017/S1068280500005554HwangJoonghyunDanielR. PetroliaMatthewG. Interis2014“Valuation, Consequentiality, and Opt-Out Responses to Stated Preference Surveys.”Agricultural and Resource Economics Review433471488Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[21]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.InterisMatthew G.DanielR. Petrolia2014“The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary- and Multinomial-Choice Surveys.”Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics392201216Search in Google Scholar

[22]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): 319–405.10.1086/691697JohnstonRobert J.KevinJ. BoyleWiktorL. AdamowiczJeffBennettRoyBrouwerTrudyA. CameronHanemannW. MichaelNickHanleyMandyRyanRiccardoScarpaRogerTourangeauChristianA. Vossler2017“Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.”Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists42319405Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[23]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.KrupnickAlanWiktorL. Adamowicz2007“Supporting Questions in Stated Choice Studies.”Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice StudiesBarbaraJ. Kanninen4365Dordrecht, The NetherlandsSpringer10.1007/1-4020-5313-4_3Search in Google Scholar

[24]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): 420–429.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01017.xLandryCraig E.JohnA. List2007“Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics892420429Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[25]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): 561–575.10.2307/3147300LeggettChristopher G.NaomiS. KlecknerKevinJ. BoyleJohnW. DufieldRobertC. Mitchell2003“Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews.”Land Economics794561575Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[26]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.LiXiaoguKimberlyL. JensenChristopherD. ClarkDaytonM. Lambert2015Scale 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 MeetingJuly 26–28San Francisco, CASearch in Google Scholar

[27]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): 241–254.10.1023/A:1012791822804ListJohn A.CraigA. Gallet2001“What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?”Environmental and Resource Economics203241254Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[28]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.LittleJosephCraigD. BroadbentRobertP. Berrens2012“Meta-Analysis of the Probability of Disparity between Actual and Hypothetical Valuation Responses: Extension and Preliminary New Results.”Western Economics Forum111112Search in Google Scholar

[29]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.MacMillanDouglas2004Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay for Environmental Outputs: Why Are They Different?A Report to SEERADUniversity of AberdeenAberdeen, United KingdomSearch in Google Scholar

[30]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.MitaniYoheiNicholasE. Flores2012Robustness 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 EconomistsJune 27–30Prague, Czech RebuplicSearch in Google Scholar

[31]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), 433–454.10.1007/s10640-013-9741-0MitaniYoheiNicholasE. Flores2014“Hypothetical Bias Reconsidered: Payment and Provision Uncertainties in a Threshold Provision Mechanism.”Environmental and Resource Economics593433454Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[32]Mitchell, Robert C., and Richard T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.MitchellRobert C.RichardT. Carson1989Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Methods.Washington, DCResources for the FutureSearch in Google Scholar

[33]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): 313–325.10.1007/s10640-004-3332-zMurphyJames J.Geoffrey AllenP.ThomasH. StevensDarrylWeatherhead2005“A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation”Environmental and Resource Economics303313325Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[34]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), 231–245.10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00051-7NunesPaulo A.L.D.ErikSchokkaert2003“Identifying the Warm Glow Effect in Contingent Valuation.”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management452231245Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[35]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): 1–16.10.1080/21606544.2016.1139468OehlmannMalteJürgenMeyerhoff2017“Stated Preferences Towards Renewable Energy Alternatives in Germany – Do the Consequentiality of the Survey and Trust in Institutions Matter?”Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy61116Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[36]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.SchwarzNorbert1997“Cognition, Communication, and Survey Measurement: Some Implications for Contingent Valuation Surveys.”Determining the Value of Non-Marketed GoodRaymondJ. KoppWernerW. PommerehneNorbertSchwarz165188Boston, MAKluwer Academic Publishers10.1007/978-94-011-5364-5_7Search in Google Scholar

[37]Strong, Aaron, and Nicholas E. Flores. 2008. “Estimating the Economic Benefits of Acidic Rock Drainage Clean Up Using Cost Shares.” Ecological Economics 65(2): 348–355.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.021StrongAaronNicholasE. Flores2008“Estimating the Economic Benefits of Acidic Rock Drainage Clean Up Using Cost Shares.”Ecological Economics652348355Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[38]von Neumann, John, and Oskar Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.von NeumannJohnOskarMorgenstern1944Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.Princeton, NJPrinceton University PressSearch in Google Scholar

[39]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.VosslerChristian A.MauriceDoyonDanielRondeau2012“Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.”American Economic Journal: Microeconomics4414517110.1257/mic.4.4.145Search in Google Scholar

[40]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.VosslerChristian A.Scott HolladayJ.2016Alternative Value Elicitation Formats in Contingent Valuation: A New Hope.Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of European Association of Environmental and Resource EconomistsJune 22–25Zurich, SwitzerlandSearch in Google Scholar

[41]Vossler, Christian A., and Michael McKee. 2006. “Induced-Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms.” Environmental and Resource Economics 35(2), 137–168.10.1007/s10640-006-9011-5VosslerChristian A.MichaelMcKee2006“Induced-Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms.”Environmental and Resource Economics352137168Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[42]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: 137–147.10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.007VosslerChristian A.SharonB. Watson2013“Understanding the Consequences of Consequentiality: Testing the Validity of Stated Preferences in the Field.”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization86137147Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[43]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.ZawojskaEwaAnnaBartczakMikolajCzajkowski2018“Disentangling the Effects of Policy and Payment Consequentiality and Risk Attitudes on Stated Preferences.”WNE Working Papers no. (1)260Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of WarsawWarsaw, PolandSearch in Google Scholar

[44]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): 374–403.10.1080/21606544.2017.1322537ZawojskaEwaMikołajCzajkowski.2017“Re-examining Empirical Evidence on Stated Preferences: Importance of Incentive Compatibility.”Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy64374403Open DOISearch in Google Scholar