Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Conservative dichotomous choice responses in the active policy setting: DC rejections below WTP

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An important feature of a Contingent Value (CV) study is that researchers design a survey that guides respondents to answer dichotomous choice (DC) questions as if they represent once-and-for-all choices. Researchers frequently construct hypothetical markets to satisfy this condition; yet detractors assert that ‘hypotheticality’ leads inevitably to inflated DC responses. For active policy questions, however, some respondents may suspect that a CV informs an actual policy issue; so to reject a DC might induce the policy-maker to reintroduce the policy with a price reduction or a program improvement. With potential incentives to deflate a DC response when policies are active, we locate two types of respondents that represent two different incentives. One class is expected to be able to risk permanent rejection of a waiver from one automobile emissions inspection. This class more frequently rejects a DC value known to improve existing conditions. Another respondent class is expected to be risk averse to defeat of the program or to excessive delay. Predictably, these respondents more frequently accept a DC value that represents a known gain. Conservative DC responses have implications for the use of CV in active policy contexts, opening a role for theory to assist practitioners in these circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberini A, Kanninen B, Carson R (1997) Modeling response effects in dichotomous choice contingent value data. Land Economics 73:309–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini A, Veronesi M, Cooper JC (2005) Detecting starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation surveys. FEEM Working Paper No. 119.05

  • Ash M, Murphy JJ, Stevens TH (2004) Hypothetical bias in dichotomous choice contingent value studies. University of Massachusetts Resource Economics Working Paper No. 2004–9

  • Bendor J, Taylor S, Van Gaalen R (1985) Bureaucratic expertise versus legislative authority: a model of deception and monitoring in budgeting. Am Polit Sci Rev 79:1041–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohara AK, Berrens RP, McKee M (1998) Effects of total cost and group-size information on willingness to pay responses: open-ended vs. dichotomous-choice. J Environm Econ Manage 35(2):142–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 46(2):353–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulte E, Gerking S, List JA, de Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manage 49(2):330–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG, (2003) An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda. Journal of Environ Econ Manage 46(3):472–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manage 15(3):355–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manage 27(3):218–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings R, Harrison G, Ruström E (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?. Am Econ Rev 85(1):260–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings R, Taylor L (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 83(3):649–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eavey CL, Miller GJ (1984) Bureaucratic agenda control: imposition or bargaining?. Am Polit Sci Rev 78:719–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filimon R, (1982) Asymmetric information and agenda control. J Public Econ 17:51–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, (1982) Debiasing. In: Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. Judgment under uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, New York: pp 422–444

  • Fort RD (1988) The median voter, setters, and non-repeated construction bond issues. Public Choice 56(3):213–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green H, Tunstall SM (1991) The evaluation of river quality improvements by the contingent valuation method. Appl Econ 23: 1135–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison GW, (2006) Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods. Environ Resour Econ 34:125–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52:1219–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, DA, Greene, WH (2001) The mixed logit model: the state of practice and warnings for the unwary. Working paper. Institute of Transport Studies, The University of Sydney

  • Hoehn JP, Randall A (1987) A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 14:226–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JF (2000) Stated choice methods and analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusk JL, (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness to pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85(4):840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D, Kahneman D (1995) Referendum contingent values, anchoring and willingness to pay for public goods. Working paper. Department of Economics, UC-Berkeley

  • Murphy JJ, Stevens TH (2004) Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias and Experimental Economics. Agric Nat Resour Rev 33(2):182–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer T, Rosenthal H (1979a) The elusive median voter. J public Econ 12:143–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer T, Rosenthal H (1979b) Bureaucrats versus voters: on the political economy of resource allocation by direct democracy. Q J Econ 93:563–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer T, Rosenthal H (1982) Median voters or budget maximizers: evidence from school expenditure referenda. Econ Inq 20:556–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schkade DA, Payne JW, (1994) How People Respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manage 26(1):88–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro P, Sonstelie I (1982) Representative voter or bureaucratic manipulation: an examination of public finances in California before and after proposition 13. Public Choice 39(1):113–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R (2005) Coping with preference anomalies in cost-benefit analysis: a market-simulation approach. Environ and Resour Econ 32:129–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000) Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations: automotive service technicians and mechanics. 2000 state occupational employment and wage estimates: Georgia. Occupational Employment Statistics, Washington, DC

  • Whittington D, Briscoe J, Mu X, Barron W, (1990) Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the use of contingent valuation surveys in southern Haiti. Economic Dev Cult Change 38(2):293–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeckhauser R (1973) Voting systems, honest preferences, and pareto optimality. Am Polit Sci Rev 67:934–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael C. Farmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farmer, M.C., Lipscomb, C.A. Conservative dichotomous choice responses in the active policy setting: DC rejections below WTP. Environ Resource Econ 39, 223–246 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9106-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9106-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation