Opposite impacts of policy and payment consequentiality treatments on willingness-to-pay in a contingent valuation study

References

• Andor, M. A., M. Frondel, and C. Vance. 2017. “Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study.” Environmental and Resource Economics 68 (3): 777–796. doi: 10.1007/s10640-016-0047-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulte, E., S. Gerking, J. A. List, and A. De Zeeuw. 2005. “The Effect of Varying the Causes of Environmental Problems on Stated WTP Values: Evidence from a Field Study.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49 (2): 330–342. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2004.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappellari, L., and S. P. Jenkins. 2003. “Multivariate Probit Regression Using Simulated Maximum Likelihood.” The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata 3 (3): 278–294. doi: 10.1177/1536867X0300300305
   Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T., and T. Groves. 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (1): 181–210. doi: 10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T., T. Groves, and J. 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. doi: 10.1086/676450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud, V. K. Smith, M. Conaway, and K. Martin. 1998. “Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel’s No-Vote Recommendation.” Review of Economics and Statistics 80 (2): 335–338. doi: 10.1162/003465398557429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caudill, S. B., and P. A. Groothuis. 2005. “Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to “Don’t Know” Responses in Contingent Valuation.” Land Economics 81 (3): 445–454. doi: 10.3368/le.81.3.445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, R. G., S. Elliott, G. W. Harrison, and J. Murphy. 1997. “Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?” Journal of Political Economy 105 (3): 609–621. doi: 10.1086/262084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, R. G., and L. O. Taylor. 1999. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” American Economic Review 89 (3): 649–665. doi: 10.1257/aer.89.3.649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czajkowski, M., C. A. Vossler, W. Budziński, A. Wiśniewska, and E. Zawojska. 2017. “Addressing Empirical Challenges Related to the Incentive Compatibility of Stated Preferences Methods.” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 142: 47–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.07.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan, K. J., J. R. Corrigan, and D. F. Dwyer. 2015. “Three Reasons to Use Annual Payments in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Convergent Validity, Discount Rates, and Mental Accounting.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 72: 123–136. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2015.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groothuis, P. A., T. M. Mohr, J. C. Whitehead, and K. Cockerill. 2017. “Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount.” Land Economics 93 (2): 258–268. doi: 10.3368/le.93.2.258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groothuis, P. A., and J. C. Whitehead. 2002. “Does Don’t Know Mean No? Analysis of ‘Don’t Know’ Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions.” Applied Economics 34 (15): 1935–1940. doi: 10.1080/00036840210128717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herriges, J., C. Kling, C. C. Liu, and J. Tobias. 2010. “What are the Consequences of Consequentiality?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59 (1): 67–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2009.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Interis, M., and D. Petrolia. 2014. “The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary-And Multinomial-Choice Surveys.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39 (2): 201–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R. J., K. J. Boyle, W. Adamowicz, J. Bennett, R. Brouwer, T. A. Cameron, W. M. Hanemann, et al. 2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 319–405. doi: 10.1086/691697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kling, C. L., D. J. Phaneuf, and J. Zhao. 2012. “From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (4): 3–26. doi: 10.1257/jep.26.4.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krinsky, I., and A. L. Robb. 1986. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715–719. doi: 10.2307/1924536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landry, C. E., and J. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01017.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, K. E., C. Grebitus, and R. M. Nayga, Jr. 2016. “US Consumers’ Preferences for Imported and Genetically Modified Sugar: Examining Policy Consequentiality in a Choice Experiment.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 65: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd-Smith, P., W. Adamowicz, and D. Dupont. 2019. “Incorporating Stated Consequentiality Questions in Stated Preference Research.” Land Economics 95 (3): 293–306. doi: 10.3368/le.95.3.293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitani, Y., and N. E. Flores. 2014. “Hypothetical Bias Reconsidered: Payment and Provision Uncertainties in a Threshold Provision Mechanism.” Environmental and Resource Economics 59 (3): 433–454. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9741-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Needham, K., and N. Hanley. 2019. “Prior Knowledge, Familiarity and Stated Policy Consequentiality in Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 9 (1):1–20. doi: 10.1080/21606544.2019.1611481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nepal, M., R. P. Berrens, and A. K. Bohara. 2009. “Assessing Perceived Consequentiality: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey on Global Climate Change.” International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics 14 (P09): 14–29.
   Google Scholar
• Oehlmann, M., and J. 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. doi: 10.1080/21606544.2016.1139468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrolia, D. R., M. G. Interis, and J. Hwang. 2014. “America’s Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands.” Marine Resource Economics 29 (1): 17–37. doi: 10.1086/676289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C. A., M. Doyon, and D. Rondeau. 2012. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4 (4): 145–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C. A., and M. F. Evans. 2009. “Bridging the Gap Between the Field and the Lab: Environmental Goods, Policy Maker Input, and Consequentiality.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58 (3): 338–345. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2009.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C. A., and J. S. Holladay. 2018. “Alternative Value Elicitation Formats in Contingent Valuation: Mechanism Design and Convergent Validity.” Journal of Public Economics 165: 133–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C. A., and S. B. Watson. 2013. “Understanding the Consequences of Consequentiality: Testing the Validity of Stated Preferences in the Field.” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 86: 137–147. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zawojska, E., A. Bartczak, and M. Czajkowski. 2019. “Disentangling the Effects of Policy and Payment Consequentiality and Risk Attitudes on Stated Preferences.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 93: 63–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2018.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar