Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
This chapter discusses the role of behavioral experiments in evaluation of individual economic values. Principles of experimental design play a role in application and assessment of non-market valuation methods. Experiments can be employed to assess the formation of preferences and the role of personal characteristics, social factors, and economic constraints on economic values. Experiments can be used to test the efficacy of nonmarket valuation methods and to study the effect of the valuation task, information, and context on valuation responses. We discuss these issues in turn, incorporating pertinent literature, to provide a review and synthesis of experimental methods in valuation.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Alberini, A., Boyle, K. & Welsh, M. (2003). Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 40-62.
Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73-105.
Bateman, I. J., Langford, I. H., Jones, A. P. & Kerr, G. N. (2001). Bound and path effects in multiple-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics, 23, 191-213.
Bateman, I. J., Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W. G. & Matthews, D. I. (2008). Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55, 127-141.
Berry, J., Fischer, G. & Guiteras, R. P. (2015). Eliciting and utilizing willingness to pay: Evidence from field trials in northern Ghana. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP10703. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2630151.
Bin, O. & Landry, C. E. (2013). Changes in implicit flood risk premiums: Empirical evidence from the housing market. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65, 361-376.
Bloom, H. S. (1995). Minimum detectable effects: A simple way to report the statistical power of experimental designs. Evaluation Review, 19, 547-556.
Boyle, K., Bishop, R. & Welsh, M. (1985). Starting-point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Economics, 61, 188-194.
Braga, J. & Starmer, C. (2005). Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32, 55-89.
Camerer, C. (1995). Individual decision making. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 587-703). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carbone, J. C., Hallstrom, D. G. & Smith, V. K. (2006). Can natural experiments measure behavioral responses to environmental risks? Environmental and Resource Economics, 33, 273-297.
Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E. & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173-210.
Carson, R. T. & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 181-210.
Carson, R. T., Groves, T. & Machina, M. J. (1997). Stated preference questions: Context and optimal response. Paper presented at the National Science Foundation Preference Elicitation Symposium, University of California, Berkeley.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, J., Whittington, D., Canh, D. G., Johnson, F. R. & Nyamete, A. (2007). Reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue, Vietnam. Economic Inquiry, 45, 100-114.
Corrigan, J. R., Drichoutis, A. C., Lusk, J. L., Nayga, R. M. Jr. & Rousu, M. C. (2012). Repeated rounds with price feedback in experimental auction valuation: An adversarial collaboration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94, 97-115.
Cummings, R. G., Harrison, G. W. & Osborne, L. L. (1995). Can the bias of contingent valuation surveys be reduced? Evidence from the laboratory. Working Paper, Policy Research Center, Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Cummings, R. G. & Taylor, L. O. (1998.) Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys? Land Economics, 74, 203-215.
Cummings, R. G. & Taylor, L. O. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89, 649-665.
Davis, D. D. & Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Day, B. & Prades, J.-L. P. (2010). Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 271-285.
DeShazo, J. R. (2002). Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43, 360-385.
DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, G. (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 123-143.
Duflo, E., Glennerster, R. & Kremer, M. (2007). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. Discussion Paper No. 6059. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, UK.
Gibbard, A. (1973). Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica, 41, 587-601.
Green, D., Jacowitz, K. E., Kahneman, D. & McFadden, D. (1998). Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics, 20, 85-116.
Hallstrom, D. & Smith, V. K. (2005). Market responses to hurricanes. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50, 541-561.
Hanemann, M., Loomis, J. & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 1255-1263.
Harrison, G. W. & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009-1055.
Herriges, J., Kling, C., Liu, C.-C. & Tobia, J. (2010). What are the consequences of consequentiality? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 67-81.
Hoehn, J. P. & Randall, A. (1987). A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14, 226-247.
Hoffmann, V. (2009). Intrahousehold allocation of free and purchased mosquito nets. American Economic Review, 99 (2), 236-241.
Hoffmann, V., Barrett, C. B. & Just, D. R. (2009). Do free goods stick to poor households? Experimental evidence on insecticide treated bednets. World Development, 37, 607-617.
Holmes, T. P. & Boyle, K. J. (2005). Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics, 81, 114-126.
Holmes, T. P. & Kramer, R. A. (1995). An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 121-132.
Hurwicz, L. (1972). On informationally decentralized systems. In C. McGuire & R. Radner (Eds.), Decision and organization: A volume in honor of Jacob Marschak (pp. 297-336). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
Jeuland, M., Lucas, M., Clemens, J. & Whittington, D. (2010). Estimating the private benefits of vaccination against cholera in Beira, Mozambique: A travel cost approach. Journal of Development Economics, 91, 310-322.
Kagel, J. H. (1995). Auctions: A survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 501-585). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kagel, J. H. & Roth, A. E. (1995). The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kahneman, D. (1996). Comment on Plott’s rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: The discovered preference hypothesis. In K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perleman & C. Schmidt (Eds.), Rational foundations of economic behavior (pp. 251-254). London: Macmillan.
Kapteyn, A., Wansbeek, T. & Buyze, J. (1980). The dynamics of preference formation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1, 123-157.
Kingsley, D. C. & Brown, T. C. (2010). Preference uncertainty, preference learning, and paired comparison experiments. Land Economics, 86, 530-544.
Landry, C. E. & List, J. A. (2007). Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals of value in contingent markets: Evidence from the field. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 420-432.
Landry, C. E. & Liu, H. (2011). Econometric models for joint estimation of RP-SP site frequency recreation demand models. In J. Whitehead, T. Haab & J.-C. Huang (Eds.), Preference data for environmental valuation: Combining revealed and stated approaches (pp. 87-100). New York, NY: Routledge.
Langford, I. H., Bateman, I. J. & Langford, H. D. (1996). A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 7, 197-211.
Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics (pp. 111-193). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Levitt, S. D. & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21 (2), 153-174.
Lew, D. K. & Wallmo, K. (2011). External tests of scope and embedding in stated preference choice experiments: An application to endangered species valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 1-23.
List, J. A., Berrens, R., Bohara, A. & Kerkvilet, J. (2004). Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. American Economic Review, 94, 741-752.
List, J. A. & Gallet, C. (2001). What experimental protocol influences disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241-254.
List, J. A., Sadoff, S. & Wagner, M. (2011). So you want to run an experiment, now what? Some simple rules of thumb for optimal experimental design. Experimental Economics, 14, 439-457.
Loomis, J. (2011). What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies? Journal of Economic Surveys, 25, 363-370.
Loomis, J. & Eckstrand, E. (1998). Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: The case of the Mexican spotted owl. Ecological Economics, 27, 29-41.
McFadden, D. (2009). The human side of mechanism design: A tribute to Leo Hurwicz & Jean-Jacque Laffont. Review of Economic Design, 13, 77-100.
Meyer, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13, 151-161.
Montgomery, D. C. (2005). Design and analysis of experiments. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Murphy, J. J., Allen, P. G., Stevens, T. H. & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 313-325.
Parsons, G. R. (1991). A note on choice of residential location in travel cost demand models. Land Economics, 67, 360-364.
Plott, C. R. (1996). Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: The discovered preference hypothesis. In K. J. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perleman & C. Schmidt (Eds.), Rational foundations of economic behavior (pp. 225-250). New York, NY: St. Martin’s.
Roth, A. E. (1995). Introduction to experimental economics. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 3-111). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Satterthwaite, M. A. (1975). Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 187-217.
Shogren, J. F., List, J. A. & Hayes, D. J. (2000). Preference learning in consecutive experimental auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82, 1016-1021.
Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preferences. American Psychologist, 50, 364-371.
Smith, V. L. (1964). Effect of market organization on competitive equilibrium. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78, 181-201.
Spybrook, J., Raudenbush, S. W., Liu, X. & Congdon, R. (2006). Optimal design for longitudinal and multilevel research: Documentation for the “Optimal Design” software. University of Michigan. Retrieved from: www.rmcs.buu.ac.th/statcenter/HLM.pdf.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
Vossler, C., Doyon, M. & Rondeau, D. (2012). Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4, 145-171.
Vossler, C. & Evans, M. F. (2009). Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policymaker input, and consequentiality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58, 338-345.
Vossler, C. & Watson, S. B. (2013). Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 86, 137-147.
Whitehead, J. C., Dumas, C. F., Herstine, J., Hill, J. & Buerger, B. (2008). Valuing beach access and width with revealed and stated preference data. Marine Resource Economics, 23, 119-135.
Whitehead, J. C., Haab, T. C. & Huang, J.-C. (2000). Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resource and Energy Economics, 22, 339-354.
- Experimental Methods in Valuation
Craig E. Landry
- Springer Netherlands
- Chapter 10
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Voraussetzungen für wirtschaftliche additive Fertigung/© Marco2811 | Fotolia